Conference quark::mennotes-v1

re 358.66
<I think that's a pretty non-standard definition of incest.  Incest involves
<family members (exactly how that's defined varies from culture to culture).
<If two adult siblings (for example) have consensual sex, that's incest.
<Likewise, if a father rapes or seduces his minor daughter, that's incest.
<The former is probably not sexual abuse, the latter most certainly is.

The use of 'incest' to encompass those experiences recounted in .63, .65
is used by way of convenience by mental health professionals. Most books I
have read on the subject -and I have read many- typically specify the
precise meaning of incest and then go on to point out that any sexual
experience that involves the violation of trust between an adult and a
child has a psychologically similar impact on the child as the more
narrowly defined "incest" does when one of the parties is a minor.
The authors then go on to say that for convenience they will henceforth use
the word "incest" to encompass the wider set of experiences. Knowing
completely that the common, and legal use of the word is different. People
who are experienced in this area often forget that those without comparable
experiences have difficulty when the word "incest" is used in a way that
is certainly new and perhaps even challenging.

re .1
Please reread .0. I certainly agree that rape (virtually) always causes
psychological trauma.


				herb

re .1:

There was a Swedish movie called (?) "Adalan 1931" that came out about 20
years ago.  A sensitive shy teenage boy had tender feelings towards a girl,
but she wasn't interested in him sexually.  He set about learning hypnosis.
He hypnotized her with the intention of having sex with her while she was
under hypnosis.  If he had succeeded, would this have been rape?  Did he
have violent intentions?  My answers are "yes" and "no" respectively.

    You cannot make a person act under hypnosis in such a way that it
    violates their fundamental beliefs.  Thus, he could not have succeeded
    in the way you describe.

    But he did have violent intentions.  He wanted to have sex with her
    against her will.  
    					- Vick

re .5:

So you can't make a hypnotized person *act* against his will.  He could have
had sex with her without her *acting* at all.

re .6:

There was a case a few years ago of a dentist who fondled his patients
while they were under anesthesia.  Would you consider this violent?

 <There was a case a few years ago of a dentist who fondled his patients
<while they were under anesthesia.  Would you consider this violent?


    		O F  C O U R S E   H E   W O U L D ! !

    He just got through, in .6,  D E F I N I N G  violent sex as having sex
    against the will.

    <But he did have violent intentions.  He wanted to have sex with her
    <against her will.

    The fact that someone wants to do something to/with you against your
    will does not means their intentions are necessarily violent.  There
    are many ways of achieving this object that do not include violence,
    including non-violent coersion, trickery, deceit, etc.

    it does if you define violence that way

    To define violence as anything done to/with you against your will
    broadens it to the point where it becomes meaningless, and certainly
    contradicts both dictionary definitions and common usage and is
    therefore ridiculous.

    in re an anaethetized patient ...

    Is the patient's 'unawareness' relevant to one's view of violence?
    There is LITTLE question that the dentist intended to fondle the
    <whatever> and that he did indeed fondle it (if he did). 

    But, even if the dentist's intent was to wreak violence (he certainly
    'violated' her boundaries), can she be perceived as having had violence
    perpetrated against her?
    
    Do trees falling in the woods make noise even if no one is listening?
    (I think she hasn't suffered a psychological trauma unless she knows)
    
    Do you guys agree that you have so much invested in _being right_ that
    there is not a snow-ball's chance in hell of reaching agreement?
    And unless agreement can be reached, temperate discussion of neither
    rape, nor child abuse will take place. Is that the goal?

Surely among the readers of this conference there's someone who knows the
legal definition of rape (or can look it up).  That would be a starting point.

    
    Anyone who has been raped can generally *feel the difference* in
    willingness/unwillingness.  I would rather trust a consensus of
    victim's definitions of rape, than a legal definition (although the
    latter is what is used in courts).
    
    Perhaps VIOLENCE is not the isolated term that should make us shudder.
    
    ABUSE is more apt, perhaps?
    
    It doesn't have to be forced that hard if the person is unconscious or
    their nerves have been dulled - but it isn't with consent.
    
    It's abuse of an opportunity, and if that opportunity is induced by
    novacaine, alcohol, general anasthesia, a rabbit punch, whatever....doesn't
    matter.  It's abuse of a person's right to choose whether or not they
    wish to have sexual intimacy of any sort with another person - whether
    that's fondling or intercourse.  It's a boundary violation.  It's an
    infringement of their personal freedom - insert proper declaration of
    independence or whatever liturgy on inalienable rights (life, liberty,
    and the pursuit of happiness).
    
    
    -Jody
    -Jody

    Is it the definition of rape that is in question, or definition of
    "violence"?
    I don't believe there is a precise legal definition of rape in the
    United States. I believe it varies from state to state.
    Many states require that the perp be a male. I think some states
    require that the victim be a female. Carnal knowledge (whatever that
    is beside a Paul Simon/Ann Margret movie directed by Mike Nichols?) is
    often cited as necessary. Penetration is sometimes required. The 
    definition of a minor varies some among states. Just to name a few
    complications.

    re .14
    
    Well, that is cute, and it does allow you to keep insisting you are
    right.

    Thankyou Jody: 
    
    There are now two perfectly serviceable words available. Abuse or
    Trauma.  We can all feel comfortable with prefixing either of the
    adjectives emotional or psychological to these words, knowing we are
    communicating something of value and of reality.
    
    	psychological abuse		emotional abuse
    	psychological trauma		emotional trauma
    
    
    			   herb

    I wonder how .11 parses now ...
    
    To define ...
    	emotional abuse
    	emotional trauma
    				as anything done to/with you against your will
    	psychological abuse
    	psychological trauma
    
    broadens the terms to the point where they are meaningless, and
    certainly contradicts both dictionary definitions and common usage and
    is therefore ridiculous.
    
    No, I don't think any of those statements merits ridicule or is
    meaningless. Waddaya think, SIMPSON_D?  Make sense to you?
    
    				herb

    	I suggest you look up muleheaded

.5> You cannot make a person act under hypnosis in such a way that it
.5> violates their fundamental beliefs.  Thus, he could not have succeeded
.5> in the way you describe.

    That's a red herring.
    
    Even if she wants it, if she says no, it's still rape.
    
    Consent is the key, not desire.

.6> But he did have violent intentions.  He wanted to have sex with her
.6> against her will.  
    
    You really should get a good dictionary and look up violent.

.14> I consider when someone violates someone, that is violent, period.
    
    You really should get a good dictionary and look up violent.

    And, since I'm feeling so charitable today ...
    
    violent, adj. 1 acting or done with strong, rough force: a violent
    blow, violent exercise, a violent storm. syn: fierce, furious. 2 caused
    by strong, rough force: a violent death. 3 showing or caused by very
    strong feeling or action: violent language, a violent rage. syn:
    vehement. 4 very great, severe, extreme: a violent pain, violent heat,
    a violent headache. 5 that tends to distort meaning.

    re: .5
>    You cannot make a person act under hypnosis in such a way that it
>    violates their fundamental beliefs.
    
    	A book I have on hypnosis, written by a university professor of
    psychology who had specialised in hypnosis and performed many
    experiments of his own indicates that only about 20% of the population
    can be hypnotised to a sufficient depth for the hypnotist to change
    their fundamental beliefs. It takes about the same depth of hypnosis to
    make someone act against their fundamental beliefs without changing
    them. Thus you are 80% correct.
    
    	I am not sure if this has anything to do with redefinition of the
    word "violent", and I am sure it has nothing to do with rape.

    Looks like there are some people who consider misuse of a word to be a
    bigger obscenity than the act that the word is trying to depict.

    Not I.

    shame on you, sir

    Herb,
    
    	I think that misuse of a word DOES become significant when a
    person's argument is something like "Act X is ALWAYS violent because I
    choose to define the word VIOLENT in an arbitrary manner which has very
    little in common with the generally accepted definition."  It's pretty
    tough to hold a discussion when you're using Newspeak.
    
    larry

    RE: .32  larry
    
    > I think that misuse of a word DOES become significant when a
    > person's argument is something like "Act X is ALWAYS violent because I
    > choose to define the word VIOLENT in an arbitrary manner which has very
    > little in common with the generally accepted definition."  
    
    Gee, you've taken quite a bit of liberty with the language yourself,
    there, by using quotes to put YOUR WORDS into someone else's mouth.
    I've not seen anyone describe their use of a particular meaning of a
    word to be "arbitrary," for example.  You made this up.
    
    > It's pretty tough to hold a discussion when you're using Newspeak.
    
    It's also tough when you hold others to limits that you don't impose
    on yourself (when it comes to meanings/interpretations of sentences,
    phrases, and words.)  I guess we could call it "Larryspeak."
    
    By the way, I do regard all/most acts of rape as violent (but not for
    the reason you suggested.)  Without getting too graphic, let me put
    it this way:  The human body has ways of "getting ready" to accept
    sexual insertion (by moisturizing itself, etc.)  When this is done
    without a person's consent (participation,) the lack of this moisture
    tends to create tissue damage to the person being penetrated.
    
    Internal tissue damage is not as dramatic as a broken arm or leg, but
    it's damage (caused by violent intrusion,) nonetheless.  Even an
    unconscious person can suffer this damage (although a person raping
    such a person may consider the act non-violent since there was no
    real struggle.)
    
    Tissue damage may seem unimportant to some folks, but try to imagine
    whether it would be painful to have sexual organs damaged in any way
    at all (and whether it would seem important to the one who is actually
    damaged.)
    
    Hope this helps.

    Remember the movie "Deliverance" (where one of the men on the trip
    was raped?)
    
    Aside from a few slaps on the backside, it didn't seem very violent.
    The man was ordered to get into a certain position, and he did.
    Then the other man raped him.
    
    Why do you suppose the raped man screamed and screamed while it was
    happening?  (Do you think he was just unhappy at having sex with
    this other guy?)  The actor was protraying a man in PAIN!!!  Even
    if the rapist hadn't slapped him at all, the act of rape itself
    was obviously violent (to one particular part of his body.)

    One last thing...
    
    If you were unconsious and someone decided to clean out the insides
    of your ears or nose, for example, I guess it might be regarded as
    non-violent (since it wouldn't amount to a punch, a slap or a stab.)
    
    However, when you think back about how sensitive these areas are -
    isn't it possible that a person cleaning another person's ears or
    nose is almost BOUND to create some sort of pain or damage in the
    process?  Again, it wouldn't be as dramatic as a broken arm or leg,
    but it would be damage of some sort.  (In the case of the nose, it
    might even be likely to bleed, depending on how vigorously it was
    being cleaned.)
    
    Thus, doesn't this amount to "violence"?  
    
    Isn't it true that almost any instrusive act done to a person's body
    without their cooperation/consent is violent in some way (in the sense
    that it causes some level of pain or physical discomfort?)

re: whether rape is violent or not

I am a victim of rape...I survived...I wasn't beaten senseless...I was
simply overpowered.  I was violated in the most profound personal sense
that is possible.  Don't you tell me I did not suffer violence.
I KNOW I did.  Playing word games with a subject like this is ugly and
cruel to the victims and serves no purpose other than to pump up some
twit's personal sense of "I'm RIGHT and YOU'RE NOT"....

		GROW UP!

    Why do you think that a violent rape proves that all rapes must be
    violent?
    
    There have been many examples posted here of rape without violence.
    
    Or do you think those weren't real rapes?

re: .37
    
>    Why do you think that a violent rape proves that all rapes must be
>    violent?
>    
>    There have been many examples posted here of rape without violence.
>    
>    Or do you think those weren't real rapes?
    
    
    Let me try this one more time, Mike.  People define how they see rape,
    and many define it as violent.  Whether you agree with their definition
    or not, that is how they define it.  And people create these
    definitions based on their experience, their loved ones' experience,
    things they have read and heard and seen in this world.
    
    Violence does not a rape make, VIOLATION makes a rape.
    
    Mike, you have read enough to *know* what people in here call rape, and
    in your heart you know exactly what would constitute it for yourself. 
    The two may not be identical.  Please stop trying to pin down terms. 
    
    No terms will reach consensus.  No terms need to.
    People are sharing of themselves, their feelings, their viewpoints, and
    their experiences.  Mine does not match yours, nor does yours match
    mine - nor *should they match*.
    
    Please give people leeway to express what they need to express, however
    that occurs to them.  Please give them the freedom to share from their
    experience, and please share from yours.  Please share your thoughts
    and insights, and allow others to do the same without trying to pin it
    down.
    
    Dance with the discussion - because the touchier and more painful the
    topic, the more delicate the waltz of words that needs to happen with
    it.  
    
    Thank you.
    
    -Jody
    

    Insisting on the meaning of terms is neither insensitive or unnecesary. 
    If you wish to communicate using a public language then you oblige
    yourself, if only for the sake of your own purpose, to use words as
    they are commonly agreed to mean.  If you don't then don't waste
    people's time by complaining that we don't understand - of course we
    don't.
    
    Add to this the barely hidden agenda of so many who wish to change our
    language in ways which are not at all hidden in their intent to injure
    men, and in this conference of all conferences no-one has the right to
    complain when so many men object so vehemently.

    I can't help but wonder what the real agenda is of those who focus on
    definitions. I am confused by it, I don't understand it, but it makes
    me uneasy.

    				herb

    RE: .37  Mike Z.
    
    > Why do you think that a violent rape proves that all rapes must be
    > violent?
    
    Absence of broken limbs, visible contusions, bloody heads and faces
    does NOT mean there was no violence.  When the inside of a person's
    body is damaged in any way, it is violent to that person (EVEN IF
    YOU CAN'T SEE OR FEEL THE DAMAGE.)
    
    > There have been many examples posted here of rape without violence.
    
    Only a person who has been raped in a way s/he considers non-violent
    is in a position to know such a thing.  (Even if some folks have
    described their own rapes as non-violent, it doesn't PROVE that rape
    in general is non-violent.)
    
    > Or do you think those weren't real rapes?
    
    Nope.  I think that a particular rape can be violent whether or not
    YOU happen to see visible evidence of it.

    Correction:

    I believe I do understand the motivation of those who say _ALL_ rape is
    violent. I believe there are about four connected motivations ....


    	o fear that their feelings about rape are being invalidated, 
    	o a sense that somehow the experience is less important than its
    	  definition
    	o anger at those who persist in "quibbling" about the words that are
    	  used to articulate that experience
    	o sympathy towards those who have been subjected to either adult rape
    	  or childhood sexual abuse.

    I believe that the concept communicated by "violent" is very useful at
    least as a metaphor to characterize the impact on the psyche of the
    emotional and/or psychological trauma that rape or childhood sexual abuse
    often/typically/almost invariably has.

    In my case, I'm not saying that every person on the planet who has ever
    been raped experienced it as violence.  I suppose it is possible for
    a rapist to take the sort of care to be gentle while raping that a loved
    one would take (when accessing a private part of a person's body) - but
    I think it's extremely, extremely rare.
    
    Violence is a matter of the personal perspective of the person being
    raped.  It isn't up to someone else to see no bruises or broken bones
    and declare it "non-violent" if the person who was raped was hurt in
    some non-visible way.

    I regard rape (in general) as violent because the orifices of one's
    body are particularly sensitive places (with plenty of opportunities
    for pain or discomfort, especially from a person who is engaging in
    activities against the other person's will.)

    I don't see the violence as a metaphor in this situation.  It's quite
    real.

    By the way, I heard of a case in Miami on the news this morning where
    a man died while in police custody after his liver ruptured (one of
    the arresting cops KNEELED on part of the guy's back while they were
    putting cuffs on him.)  
    
    Kneeling doesn't sound very violent.  So did this man die from an
    act of non-violence?
    
    (Also, how about stomach punches?  No bruises are visible afterward.
    Are these non-violent?)

.41> Only a person who has been raped in a way s/he considers non-violent
.41> is in a position to know such a thing.
    
    "You can't possibly know about this because it never happened to you."
    
    Period.   Case closed.
    
    What a convenient way to stifle discussion.

.44>    Kneeling doesn't sound very violent.  So did this man die from an
    
    Unless you've suffered liver rupture from being kneeled on, you
    can't possibly know if it was violent or not.

    RE: .45  Mike Z.
    
    .41> Only a person who has been raped in a way s/he considers non-violent
    .41> is in a position to know such a thing.
    
    > "You can't possibly know about this because it never happened to you."
    
    Putting words in my mouth with quotes, eh?  (And people here talk about 
    taking inappropriate liberties with language.  Tsk, Tsk!)
    
    Try - "You can't possibly know precisely what another individual human 
    has experienced because YOU ARE NOT THAT PERSON!  Therefore, if YOU
    say another person's rape was non-violent, it's meaningless rhetoric
    unless the person who was raped regards the rape as non-violent him/
    herself."
    
    > Period.   Case closed.
    > What a convenient way to stifle discussion.
    
    It's intellectually dishonest to claim that you KNOW FOR A FACT that
    another person's assault was not painful nor violent (unless that
    individual person describes the assault as not painful nor violent.)
    
    Even then, it can't be used as any sort of evidence that rape is not
    violent in general.
    
    Are you closer to comprehension now, or do you require extensive
    explanations beyond this?

    RE: .46  Mike Z.
    
    .44> Kneeling doesn't sound very violent.  So did this man die from an
    
    > Unless you've suffered liver rupture from being kneeled on, you
    > can't possibly know if it was violent or not.
    
    See .47 (where I pointed out to you that your "rewrite" of my words
    was a crock.)
    
    Want to re-address this (now that you've been corrected?)

    Mike Z., in case you're feeling lost right about now, let my try to
    help:
    
    When you say you've given many examples of non-violent rape, the claim
    is meaningless.  Is it non-violent rape when someone gets raped without
    getting punched out or stabbed?  Not necessarily (because not all wounds
    and damage from rape are visible!!)
    
    Do you think you've found a "type" of rape (or a rape scenerio) that
    is inherently non-violent?  I disagree that ANY rape situation is of
    a type that can be classified as non-violent per se.
    
    Internal pain and damage are possible (and even likely) in any situation
    where intrusive acts are committed against someone's body without their
    cooperation.  Orifices tend to be particularly fragile (when handled by
    a person without the cooperation of the person being, um, handled.)
    
    Hope this helps.

    geesh !speaking of strange bedfellows!
    
    re .39
    
    <Add to this the barely hidden agenda of so many who wish to change our
    <language in ways which are not at all hidden in their intent to injure
    <men, and in this conference of all conferences no-one has the right to
    <complain when so many men object so vehemently.
    

    Ponderous, ain't it.

    re .47
    
>    Try - "You can't possibly know precisely what another individual human 
>    has experienced because YOU ARE NOT THAT PERSON!  Therefore, if YOU
>    say another person's rape was non-violent, it's meaningless rhetoric
>    unless the person who was raped regards the rape as non-violent him/
>    herself."
    
    For someone who claims to have studied logic you're not doing very
    well.  If it is indeed the case that there can be non-violent rape (I
    reserve judgement on this for the moment) and that the case in question
    falls into that category then the fact that the victim expresses their
    sense of violation with the word violent does not make it so.  It is
    illogical to say that the victim can, in their effort to describe what
    happened to them, redefine words according to their feelings and then
    expect to have their situation and experience understood.  It is better
    for everybody to search for the right words than to misuse them and try
    to justify it "because that's how I feel".

    RE: .52
    
    > For someone who claims to have studied logic you're not doing very
    > well.
    
    My logic is in tact.  Your reading comprehension, however, requires
    some serious work.
    
    > If it is indeed the case that there can be non-violent rape (I
    > reserve judgement on this for the moment) and that the case in question
    > falls into that category then the fact that the victim expresses their
    > sense of violation with the word violent does not make it so. 
    
    How many times do I need to say (quite specifically) that I'm talking
    about actual physical damage (internal tissue damage) before you
    comprehend that the feelings I'm discussing are PHYSICAL not emotional.
    
    If a person says, "I FEEL PHYSICAL PAIN" (and has any level at all of
    tissue damage inside the orifice that has been violated) - it is indeed
    violence (and pain for that person) per the dictionary definition of
    those terms.  The fact that YOU can't see the damage doesn't matter in
    the least.  Violence still occurred.
    
    I've said this several times now.  If you're still struggling with this
    concept, try remedial English.

    After reading the notes in this discussion, I get the impression that
    the accepted definition of rape (for some folks here) runs along the
    lines of:  
    
       In the absence of physical wounds (such as broken limbs, contusions,
       or stabs,) rape is just ordinary sex with the minor difference that
       the woman didn't actually consent to it.  No big deal.
    
    (I said "woman" and not "person" on purpose, because I'm not sure if
    the same folks see a man raping another man any differently.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think rape is a sexual act with an
unwilling person.  The tricky part is the definition of "sexual act."
I don't think that breast fondling can be rape, but I also don't think
penetration is necessary.

Two questions for whoever said that all rape is violent because penetrating
an unwilling partner isn't lubricated: (1) if a woman forces a man to
penetrate her, is it rape?  (2) suppose the perpetrator uses a lubricant?

    RE: .55
    
    > I can't speak for anyone else, but I think rape is a sexual act with an
    > unwilling person. 
    
    No big deal, then, right?  Just ordinary sex which happens to occur
    without consent - but otherwise, nothing unusual.  (Unless it happened
    to occur to you and you had physical pain and wounds that others could
    not see.)
    
    This attitude is part of the reason why it's been so difficult (for
    so long) to prosecute rape cases.  Hey, if property had been stolen,
    then prosecution is justified.  If it's just some woman who thinks
    she's been hurt because she had sex (but perhaps she merely didn't
    consent to it, no big deal) then WHY RUIN A MAN'S LIFE FOR IT? (Right?)
    
  >Two questions for whoever said that all rape is violent because penetrating
  >an unwilling partner isn't lubricated: (1) if a woman forces a man to
  >penetrate her, is it rape?  (2) suppose the perpetrator uses a lubricant?
    
    I used this as an example, only.
    
    Try to imagine that a man is having his sexual organs handled by a
    hostile person (who isn't worried about whether this handling might
    be painful.)  Do you think it's POSSIBLE that an uncaring, hostile
    person might inflict pain on this sensitive area in some way (in
    the course of forcing activity against a man's will?)
    
    Do people normally relish the idea of hostile persons handling their
    private parts?  (Are they really so invulnerable to pain????)

    please stop, Suzanne

re .56:

>    > I can't speak for anyone else, but I think rape is a sexual act with an
>    > unwilling person. 
>    
>    No big deal, then, right?  Just ordinary sex which happens to occur
>    without consent - but otherwise, nothing unusual.  (Unless it happened
>    to occur to you and you had physical pain and wounds that others could
>    not see.)

I fail to see where I implied that rape is "no big deal."

I'm saying that non-violent rape (which I don't consider an oxymoron) is
no less repugnant that violent rape.  Do you disagree?  Is it OK for
someone to seduce a mentally incompetent person?

It seems to me that defining rape in terms of the victim being unwilling
is stronger and more accurate than defining it in terms of violence.
Besides the examples of non-violent rape that have already been given,
what about violent sex acts between willing participants (e.g. sado-masochism)?
Do you consider such acts to be rape?

.55>I can't speak for anyone else, but I think rape is a sexual act with an
.55>unwilling person.
    
    Well, you can speak for me.
    
    I've been saying this all along.

    re .53
    
>    My logic is in tact.  Your reading comprehension, however, requires
>    some serious work.
    
    I'll match my English, comprehension and otherwise, against yours
    anyday.
    
>    How many times do I need to say (quite specifically) that I'm talking
>    about actual physical damage (internal tissue damage) before you
>    comprehend that the feelings I'm discussing are PHYSICAL not emotional.
    
    That is not at all what the passage I quoted was talking about.  If you
    meant to say this then you failed.  Try a remedial English class.
    
    Now, consider this: normal, consensual, lubricated heterosexual
    intercourse can make micro-tears in the lining of the vagina (for those
    who don't know, this is why women are more receptive to AIDS in het
    sex).  Are we to consider this violent?

    What is it they say in WN ... ??
    
    	You can't teach a pig to sing.
    
    	It only wastes your time and serves to further irritate the pig.

    RE: .58
    
    > I fail to see where I implied that rape is "no big deal."
    
    Well, describing rape as simple sex with an unwilling partner makes
    it sound like a less serious crime than it is (IMO.)
    
    > I'm saying that non-violent rape (which I don't consider an oxymoron) 
    > is no less repugnant that violent rape.  Do you disagree? 
    
    Yes.
    
    > It seems to me that defining rape in terms of the victim being unwilling
    > is stronger and more accurate than defining it in terms of violence.
    
    The lack of consent is crucial to the definition of the rape of a
    mentally competant and/or majority age person, true.  However, we
    aren't forced to limit ourselves to only one crucial element in
    this definition.  I'm saying that rape is (in general) also a
    violent crime.
    
    > Besides the examples of non-violent rape that have already been given,
    
    These examples are meaningless without an individual accounting of any
    internal (or external) pain or physical damage.  (Lack of broken bones
    and or stab wounds is insufficient to characterize a rape as non-violent.)
    
    > what about violent sex acts between willing participants (e.g. sado-
    > masochism)?  Do you consider such acts to be rape?
    
    C'mon.  Saying that rape (in general) is a violent crime is not the
    same thing as saying that all violence involving sexual organs is rape.
    Again, the lack of consent (for a mentally competant and/or majority
    age person is a crucial component.)

    RE: .60
    
    > I'll match my English, comprehension and otherwise, against yours
    > anyday.
    
    Well, if so, then you shouldn't have any additional problems 
    understanding the meaning of a simple phrase like "physical pain"
    (as distinguished from "emotional pain.")  Good luck.
    
    > That is not at all what the passage I quoted was talking about.
    
    Here is the original statement (referenced by the passage you
    quoted.)  If you can't understand this, please ask for help:
    
      .43> I regard rape (in general) as violent because the orifices of one's
      .43> body are particularly sensitive places (with plenty of opportunities
      .43> for pain or discomfort, especially from a person who is engaging in
      .43> activities against the other person's will.)
    
      .43>I don't see the violence as a metaphor in this situation.  It's quite
      .43>real.
    
    Do you see that my words described physical pain (not emotional pain?)
    
    Do you understand that if this pain (and physical damage) is not visible
    to others that only the person raped (and an examining physician,
    perhaps) would know that this physical damage occurred?
    
    Are we ok with this now?  Do you need more assistance?

    RE: .61  Mike Z.
    
    > You can't teach a pig to sing.
    
    > It only wastes your time and serves to further irritate the pig.
    
    Try to have a bit more patience with these folks, Mike.  Attitudes,
    information and attempts to prosecute rape cases have been severe
    problems for our culture (not to mention our legal system) for a
    long, long time.
    
    These issues won't clear up any time real soon, either.  At least
    we're talking about the issues (which makes me a bit more hopeful,
    anyway.)

    re .63
    
>    Here is the original statement (referenced by the passage you
>    quoted.)  If you can't understand this, please ask for help:
    
    I know what you said in .43.  However, the passage I quoted did not
    reference it.  But, I won't bother asking why you lie.
    
    The second passage dealt with something different - how we are to know
    what happened to the victim according to the victim's description.
    
    Oh, and are you going to answer the question?

    RE: .65
    
    > I know what you said in .43.  However, the passage I quoted did not
    > reference it.  But, I won't bother asking why you lie.
    
    If you go back to the passage you quoted (and read back through the
    discussion reference by reference - in other words, when the reply
    says "RE: .xx," go back and find it - the passage refers back to
    my comments in .43.)
    
    I'm sorry if you don't understand how NOTES work.  Perhaps a user
    manual would be of some help.
    
    > The second passage dealt with something different - how we are to know
    > what happened to the victim according to the victim's description.
    
    The passage you quoted dealt DIRECTLY with reply .43 - it did NOT talk
    about something different than what was discussed in .43.
    
    If you're incapable of following along in a notes discussion, perhaps
    you should refrain from participating (or ask questions, at the very
    least!)
    
    > Oh, and are you going to answer the question?
    
    Sure.  Repost it and I'll answer it.  (We've had so many missed
    connections here that I'd like to make sure you know what is being
    discussed next.)

    Suzanne:
    
    I think you are doing exactly what a sabouteur would want you to do.
    And I'm certain it's not your intent.
    
    
    				herb

    re .66
    
>    If you're incapable of following along in a notes discussion, perhaps
>    you should refrain from participating (or ask questions, at the very
>    least!)
    
    Once again you are telling someone that they don't have the right
    to speak out unless they follow _your_ rules and standards.
    
    fred();

    RE: .60
    
    If this is your "question," you don't need to repost it:
    
    > Now, consider this: normal, consensual, lubricated heterosexual
    > intercourse can make micro-tears in the lining of the vagina (for those
    > who don't know, this is why women are more receptive to AIDS in het
    > sex).  Are we to consider this violent?
    
    Well, if it's not painful to the woman (and is the normal amount of
    tearing that usually occurs to her,) she may not regard it as violent
    or painful (per the dictionary definitions of these terms.)
    
    However, if her lover was especially rough (and she felt pain and
    discomfort for some time afterward,) she might say, "You're getting
    a bit too violent with me during sex.  I'd like it better if you
    weren't so rough."
    
    Is violence automatically a crime?  No.  Is violence always horrible
    and shocking?  No.  Does the presence of violence during sex make
    it rape (automatically)?  No.  Is violence painful to humans?  Sometimes.
    
    Is rape a violent crime?  In my opinion, rape (in general) can be
    described as a violent crime.

    RE: .68  Fred
    
    >> If you're incapable of following along in a notes discussion, perhaps
    >> you should refrain from participating (or ask questions, at the very
    >> least!)
    
    > Once again you are telling someone that they don't have the right
    > to speak out unless they follow _your_ rules and standards.
    
    Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.  (You didn't use quotes
    this time, though.  Thanks.)
    
    I'm not talking about anyone's rights here.  You made this up.

    RE: .67  Herb
    
    > I think you are doing exactly what a sabouteur would want you to do.
    > And I'm certain it's not your intent.
    
    Herb, I'm sorry, but I don't feel at all victimized by the people in
    this dicussion.  We're having a conversation about some issues here.
    That's all.
    
    I didn't start out with any particular goal or message to deliver,
    so I don't feel sabotaged in the least.  I'm just participating.
    
    OK?

    re .70
    
    It's kind of hard to make up a direct quote Suzanne.  I went back
    ane re-read the entire .66 and it _still_ looks to me that that
    is the main point of that note.  I don't think it took the quote
    out of context either.
    
    fred();

    RE: .72  Fred
    
    > I went back ane re-read the entire .66 and it _still_ looks to me 
    > that that is the main point of that note. 
    
    Well, you're wrong.  Plain and simple.
    
    >  -< Hard to interpret it any other way >-
    
    Just ASK what the note meant next time.  It would help.

    re .73
    
>    Well, you're wrong.  Plain and simple.
    
    	Qh! well excuse me for doubting your wisdom and authority.
    
>    You need a lot of work in this area, Fred.  If you ASK what the note
>    meant next time, though, it might help.
    
    Then suppose you enlighten me about what note .66 was _really_ about.
    It certainly appeared to me that you are trying to argue from a
    position of Politically Correct superiority because the author
    of .66 doesn't know how to play the notes game and you do.
    
    fred();

    RE: .74  Fred
    
    >> Well, you're wrong.  Plain and simple.
    
    > Qh! well excuse me for doubting your wisdom and authority.
    
    When it comes to interpreting MY WORDS, I am the only one who knows
    what I meant.  (You are the only one who knows for sure the meaning
    of YOUR WORDS, too.)  If someone questions your meaning, you are
    the only authority on the subject.  Is this clear now?
    
    > Then suppose you enlighten me about what note .66 was _really_ about.
    
    It was about a needless rathole that developed because another person
    didn't bother paying attention to what was being discussed (then started
    arguing about what he ASSUMED was being discussed.)  When humans notice
    such wasteful disagreements, it's not ususual to suggest that the
    ratholes (due to such mistakes) can be avoided in the future.
    
    > It certainly appeared to me that you are trying to argue from a
    > position of Politically Correct superiority because the author
    > of .66 doesn't know how to play the notes game and you do.
    
    HUH????  Oh, I see.  When in doubt, toss a label and condemn [yet
    another instance of McCarthyism.]
    
    The ability to pay attention (during human discussion) is not a
    political issue or position.  

    By the way, to those who love dictionary definitions so much, are
    these proper uses of the word "violent":
    
    	"I violently disagree with what you just said."
    
    	"We are in violent agreement."
    

    re .75
    
    >HUH????  Oh, I see.  When in doubt, toss a label and condemn [yet
    >another instance of McCarthyism.]
    
    Again it appears to me that you are trying to argue from a position
    of Politically Correct superiouity.  Just because I _may_ label
    and condem something doesn't necessarily make me wrong.
    
    fred();

    RE: .77  Fred
    
    > Again it appears to me that you are trying to argue from a position
    > of Politically Correct superiouity.  Just because I _may_ label
    > and condem something doesn't necessarily make me wrong.
    
    When you use the label (describing a POLITICAL POSITION) to argue
    about something NON-POLITICAL (such as the dynamics of "paying
    attention" in the midst of human conversation,) it's totally
    meaningless.
    
    It would be as if I saw you park facing north and said, "Oh, yeah,
    a typical right-wing reactionary parking job (based on your own
    mistaken belief in the superiority of your politics.)"
    
    (By the way, do you remember the old David Steinberg skit - I think
    it was on the Smothers Brothers show - where he plays a psychiatrist
    asking a new patient to 'sit anywhere,' then when the patient picks
    one of two chairs, David takes notes and says, "AHA! Sex maniac!")
    
    It's just meaningless, Fred, to keep tossing politically-charged labels
    in non-political contexts.  It's useless.

    re. 78
    
>    It's just meaningless, Fred, to keep tossing politically-charged labels
>    in non-political contexts.  It's useless.
    
    Then would this not also apply to other "politically-charged labels" 
    like "deadbead-dads","rape", "incest", "abuse".....?
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .79  Fred
    
    > Then would this not also apply to other "politically-charged labels" 
    > like "deadbead-dads","rape", "incest", "abuse".....?
    
    Have you seen anyone in this discussion described as a rapist or an
    incestuous person?  I've seen people discuss these issues, of course,
    but I have yet to see anyone tell another, "Oh, you're just a deadbeat
    Dad."
    
    Have you?

    re .80
    
    I have, however, seen someone ( .66 ) try to negate someone's 
    argument on the grounds that they may not be as clever in 
    the notes file as some others.  Even to the point of _suggesting_
    that that person should not bother with writing anything unless/
    until they learn to "use the notes file".
    
    Also, I thought the main argument in this note was about whether
    or not certain terms were appropriate in describing certain acts
    or if those terms were simply being used for their political impact.
    
    I think the comparison is valid.
    fred();

    RE: .81  Fred
    
    > I have, however, seen someone ( .66 ) try to negate someone's 
    > argument on the grounds that they may not be as clever in 
    > the notes file as some others. 
    
    As relayed to you before, the POINT was to suggest ways of avoiding
    another useless rathole by paying more attention to the actual points
    of discussion.  It doesn't require as much cleverness to do this as
    ATTENTION.
    
    > Even to the point of _suggesting_ that that person should not bother 
    > with writing anything unless/until they learn to "use the notes file".
 
    If it requires NOTES training to learn how to figure out what's being
    discussed (to avoid useless ratholes based on such mistakes,) then it
    might be useful to the task at hand (IMO.)
    
    > Also, I thought the main argument in this note was about whether
    > or not certain terms were appropriate in describing certain acts
    > or if those terms were simply being used for their political impact.
 
    Well, my opinion is that rape (in general) is a violent crime, and 
    I'm using the dictionary definition for the word "violent" (as some
    others have requested.)  
    
    I've explained why I consider rape a violent crime, so if you're done
    with this rathole now, perhaps you'd care to address this issue.

    re Gina
    
    Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
    
    fred();

    RE: .84  Fred
    
    > Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
    
    It also helps (in your case) to believe there is fire when the 
    discussion merely gets a tad warm.
    

    re Suzanne,
    
    Well, now, let's see what we have.
    
.43>    In my case, I'm not saying that every person on the planet who has ever
.43>    been raped experienced it as violence.  I suppose it is possible for
.43>    a rapist to take the sort of care to be gentle while raping that a loved
.43>    one would take (when accessing a private part of a person's body) - but
.43>    I think it's extremely, extremely rare.
    
.43>    Violence is a matter of the personal perspective of the person being
.43>    raped.  It isn't up to someone else to see no bruises or broken bones
.43>    and declare it "non-violent" if the person who was raped was hurt in
.43>    some non-visible way.

.43>    I regard rape (in general) as violent because the orifices of one's
.43>    body are particularly sensitive places (with plenty of opportunities
.43>    for pain or discomfort, especially from a person who is engaging in
.43>    activities against the other person's will.)

.43>    I don't see the violence as a metaphor in this situation.  It's quite
.43>    real.
    
    So, according to you, violence is determined by subjective experience. 
    If the victim thinks it was violent then it was.  It is real if the
    victim says it was real.
    
.66>    If you go back to the passage you quoted (and read back through the
.66>    discussion reference by reference - in other words, when the reply
.66>    says "RE: .xx," go back and find it - the passage refers back to
.66>    my comments in .43.)
    
    No it doesn't.
    
.47>    RE: .45  Mike Z.
    
.47>    .41> Only a person who has been raped in a way s/he considers non-violent
.47>    .41> is in a position to know such a thing.
    
    This is the only reference in .47, and nowhere does it refer to .43. 
    Perhaps you should learn how to use Notes properly so you can check
    what was said before getting so upset.  Perhaps a user manual would be
    of some help.  Still, let's move on.
    
.47>    Try - "You can't possibly know precisely what another individual human 
.47>    has experienced because YOU ARE NOT THAT PERSON!  Therefore, if YOU
.47>    say another person's rape was non-violent, it's meaningless rhetoric
.47>    unless the person who was raped regards the rape as non-violent him/
.47>    herself."
    
    Since we cannot directly access another's experience we are dependant
    upon their description of it.  If they use the word violent to describe
    their experience, according to you that is OK, even if what they mean
    by the word and what is commonly understood by it are different.
    
.53>    How many times do I need to say (quite specifically) that I'm talking
.53>    about actual physical damage (internal tissue damage) before you
.53>    comprehend that the feelings I'm discussing are PHYSICAL not emotional.
    
    Excuse me?  Earlier you defined violence quite differently.  Then,
    violence was defined subjectively by the victim.  Now, apparently, it
    is defined by physical damage and not by emotional trauma.  But you go
    on:
    
.53>    If a person says, "I FEEL PHYSICAL PAIN" (and has any level at all of
.53>    tissue damage inside the orifice that has been violated) - it is indeed
.53>    violence (and pain for that person) per the dictionary definition of
.53>    those terms.  The fact that YOU can't see the damage doesn't matter in
.53>    the least.  Violence still occurred.
    
    Yes, violence is clearly now defined by the evidence of physical
    damage.
    
.69>    > Now, consider this: normal, consensual, lubricated heterosexual
.69>    > intercourse can make micro-tears in the lining of the vagina (for those
.69>    > who don't know, this is why women are more receptive to AIDS in het
.69>    > sex).  Are we to consider this violent?
    
.69>    Well, if it's not painful to the woman (and is the normal amount of
.69>    tearing that usually occurs to her,) she may not regard it as violent
.69>    or painful (per the dictionary definitions of these terms.)
    
    Oh, dear, we're back to the original definition now.  It's subjective
    again.  Even if she suffers lesions in her vagina (and it is true that
    most women who suffer this don't know it) it still isn't violence.
    
.69>    Is rape a violent crime?  In my opinion, rape (in general) can be
.69>    described as a violent crime.
    
    Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.  How are we to know from your
    definitions?  Which shall we choose?

    
re: .61
    
>    What is it they say in WN ... ??
>    
>    	You can't teach a pig to sing.
>    
>    	It only wastes your time and serves to further irritate the pig.
    
    
    bingo.  exit, stage left.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .86  Simpson
    
    > So, according to you, violence is determined by subjective experience. 
    
    When someone falls down a staircase or has a car accident, what do
    attending medics (or anyone else nearby) asK:
    
    	"ARE YOU HURT?????"
    
    Gee.  Why do you suppose they bother asking?  Why don't they say,
    "Look, I don't regard your pain as real unless I can see physical
    evidence of it for myself, so don't bother saying a damn thing.
    Pain and damage are not subjective experiences.  They only happen
    if ***I*** agree they have happened to you."
    
    > If the victim thinks it was violent then it was.  It is real if the
    > victim says it was real.
    
    Nope.  In the case of rape victims, I guess they only feel pain if
    their injuries can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Otherwise,
    they should not be believed.  (Right?)
    
    .66> If you go back to the passage you quoted (and read back through the
    .66> discussion reference by reference - in other words, when the reply
    .66> says "RE: .xx," go back and find it - the passage refers back to
    .66> my comments in .43.)
    
     > No it doesn't.
    
    Yes, it does.  I found .43 by going back (reference by reference) to
    see what was being discussed.  Obviously, you aren't capable of doing
    that.  I'm sorry for you.
    
    > Since we cannot directly access another's experience we are dependant
    > upon their description of it.  If they use the word violent to describe
    > their experience, according to you that is OK, even if what they mean
    > by the word and what is commonly understood by it are different.
    
    If someone says to me, "I'm hurt.  I'm in pain.  I've been the victim
    of a violent rape," I don't say, "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!  Show me the doctor's
    detailed report or I refuse to believe you."  
    
    The attitude of not believing rape victims is one of the biggest
    problems in fighting this crime.  You have demonstrated (yourself)
    why we need so much work in this area.
    
    Thanks.
    
    > Excuse me?  Earlier you defined violence quite differently.  Then,
    > violence was defined subjectively by the victim.  Now, apparently, it
    > is defined by physical damage and not by emotional trauma.
    
    As I've said before, PAIN IS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.
    
    "Are you hurt?"  Who knows if a person is hurt besides the person who
    experienced the assault?????  
    
    I've been discussing physical pain throughout this entire topic.
    Your problem is that if I say pain without a qualifier, you assume
    I'm talking about emotional pain (because I'm female, I suppose.)
    Even if I talk repeatedly about physical pain and damage (then leave
    out the word "physical" once,) you assume I've changed the subject
    to emotional pain.
    
    PHYSICAL PAIN is subjective.  Only the person experiencing it KNOWS
    if it's present (unless the person tells someone else.)  Not all
    physical damage can be documented.  If someone is punched in the
    stomach, it leaves no bruise but can be quite painful (and VIOLENT!)
    
    Private body parts are very sensitive.  When some hostile person is
    taking liberty with body parts against another person's will, it
    is LIKELY that pain will be inflicted.  If you don't believe someone
    who says she's been hurt, it's YOUR PROBLEM.  I would believe her.

    Suzanne,
    
    Although I agree that rape is a violent crime, crime of violence, your
    last note just kinda clicked something for me.
    
    Perhaps the objection is to the idea of pain = violence.  For instance,
    I'm a klutz, fall down alot and hurt myself.  I feel pain, but don't
    consider that I've experienced violence.  Perhaps some folks don't 
    equate pain with violence in the case of rape.  I feel rape is a crime
    of violence and power as one is taking from another something that is 
    not being given.  That taking (IMO) always includes force, the force 
    comes in varying degrees, but I still think it's a violent act
    perpetrated on the victim.  
    
    Just a thought,
    
    Christine

    RE: .89  Christine
    
    My opinion is that rape qualifies as a crime of violence even when
    the dictionary definition of "violent" is being used.
    
    Physical pain can occur without violence, God knows.  But when a
    crime is committed (using a measure of force) and physical pain is
    inflicted on the victim (which is quite often the case in occurrences
    of rape,) then the crime (in general) can be described as a violent
    crime.
    
    What I've begun to learn in this topic is that some men don't realize
    that women have any degree of sensitivity or vulnerability in the
    genital area.  When you consider the well-known sensitivity of men's
    privates, you would think that most men would realize that women's
    private parts are every bit as sensitive.  But it appears that some
    men are simply incapable of comprehending this piece of information.
    
    I've been trying to avoid asking, "Would you consider it violent if
    some guy stomped on your genital area in the process of trying to
    commit some crime against you?"  (Not that it would do any good,
    of course.  Obviously, only men are allowed to feel pain in this
    area of their bodies.  Women only feel pain if our arms or legs are
    broken.  Funny how that works.)

    re .88
    
    You seem to use pain and violence interchangeably.  They are not
    interchangeable.  I have yet to talk about pain.  I have been, since
    the beginning, talking about violence.  
    
    Pain may indicate violence; it may not.  A person may feel pain without
    violence (eg toothache).  A person may suffer violence without feeling
    pain (ie they were unconscious).
    
    Since pain is a manifestation of the brain we can generally accept a
    person's statement that they are in pain as being valid.  It cannot in
    and of itself necessarily lead us to violence.
    
    Consequently, my critique of your manifest contradictions in defining
    violence stand.  You are condemned by your own words.
    
>    If someone says to me, "I'm hurt.  I'm in pain.  I've been the victim
>    of a violent rape," I don't say, "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!  Show me the doctor's
>    detailed report or I refuse to believe you."  
    
>    The attitude of not believing rape victims is one of the biggest
>    problems in fighting this crime.  You have demonstrated (yourself)
>    why we need so much work in this area.
    
    This does not follow from what I said.  The premise of this sub-string
    is that unless there is agreement on the meaning of the word 'rape' or
    'violence', etc., then the statement 'I have been raped' does not and
    cannot convey the meaning that is intended.  Therefore, I can have no
    certainty (from the statement alone and without other verification)
    that the person has been raped.
    
    It's not a case of simply disbelieving the victim; it's about not
    knowing whether to believe when the definitions are being constantly
    changed (usually either for ideological reasons or ignorantly using the
    redefinition without understanding its basis).
    
    You'll find this hard to believe, but I am appalled by the notion of
    rape, defined as a sexual act perpetrated without consent, and need no
    ideological redefinition for the idea to gain further opprobrium.

    Suzanne,
    
    Your second paragraph in .90 is what I meant to convey in how
    I do view this crime.  I just felt that the pain and violence
    were also being used interchangeable and could see why this 
    might confuse someone.  I also think in general, it's harder
    for most men to relate to having this crime perpetrated against
    them as it is not common with men, therefore, the discussion of
    rape drawn on gender lines tend to come from completely different
    directions (IMO, of course).
    
    Christine

re .90:

>    Physical pain can occur without violence, God knows.  But when a
>    crime is committed (using a measure of force) and physical pain is
>    inflicted on the victim (which is quite often the case in occurrences
			      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    of rape,) then the crime (in general) can be described as a violent
>    crime.

Are you admitting that rape without pain exists?  Do you admit that
rape without violence exists?

I'm saying that the sine qua non of rape is that the victim is unwilling.
Rape may or may not be violent.  Obviously, it usually is violent, but
that's not what makes it rape.

    RE: .91  Simpson
    
    Well, unfortunately, we do seem to be using different definitions
    of violence, I admit.  I've been using the dictionary definition,
    while you have devised your own definition of violence (from God
    knows where.)  It's ok with me, though.  I'm willing to accept
    that your definition of violence may not always agree with the
    dictionary definition I've been using.
    
    > You seem to use pain and violence interchangeably.  They are not
    > interchangeable. 
    
    Nonsense.  You're still very confused.
    
    Here's the dictionary definition of violent:
    
       violent, adj. 1 acting or done with strong, rough force: a violent
       blow, violent exercise, a violent storm. syn: fierce, furious. 2 caused
       by strong, rough force: a violent death. 3 showing or caused by very
       strong feeling or action: violent language, a violent rage. syn:
       vehement. 4 very great, severe, extreme: a violent pain, violent heat,
       a violent headache. 5 that tends to distort meaning.
    
    Please note that "violent" is described as "ACTING OR DONE WITH STRONG
    OR ROUGH FORCE."  The presence of pain (internally or externally) is
    the result of STRONG OR ROUGH FORCE.
    
    Disclaimer:  Pain can occur other ways (OF COURSE.)  However, if pain
    is inflicted during the commission of a crime, the crime can be
    described as having been committed with "STRONG OR ROUGH FORCE," per
    the dictionary definition.
    
    > Pain may indicate violence; it may not.  A person may feel pain without
    > violence (eg toothache).
    
    If a person is in physical pain after a rape, it is likely that the
    pain was caused by the STRONG OR ROUGH FORCE of the rapist (thus, the
    crime was violent, per the dictionary definition.)
    
    > A person may suffer violence without feeling pain (ie they were 
    > unconscious).
    
    Of course.  A person may suffer violence and feel nothing ever (by
    being killed.)  It's still violence, though.  Physical pain is a 
    good indicator of the strong or rough force used during a rape,
    but if the victim isn't conscious or alive to feel it, the violence
    of the crime doesn't diminish.
    
    > Since pain is a manifestation of the brain we can generally accept a
    > person's statement that they are in pain as being valid.  It cannot in
    > and of itself necessarily lead us to violence.
    
    Well, I guess you could assume that the rape victim suddenly got a
    toothache, I guess.  I mean, one wouldn't want to take the risk of
    accusing a poor, innocent rapist of having actually used FORCE during
    the commission of a rape <gasp!>
    
    > Consequently, my critique of your manifest contradictions in defining
    > violence stand.  You are condemned by your own words.
    
    Only in your dreams, pal.  The dictionary backs up what I wrote.
    
    > The premise of this sub-string
    > is that unless there is agreement on the meaning of the word 'rape' or
    > 'violence', etc., then the statement 'I have been raped' does not and
    > cannot convey the meaning that is intended.  Therefore, I can have no
    > certainty (from the statement alone and without other verification)
    > that the person has been raped.
    
    Wow.  You've found a new excuse to disbelieve a rape victim!!  "Well,
    dear, we don't believe you've been raped because there may possibly
    be a disagreement on the definitions of the terms being used.  Now,
    stop writhing in pain and shut up."
    
    > It's not a case of simply disbelieving the victim; it's about not
    > knowing whether to believe when the definitions are being constantly
    > changed (usually either for ideological reasons or ignorantly using the
    > redefinition without understanding its basis).
    
    It's not at all about "definitions" (I've shown that.)  I've been
    using the dictionary definitions and it still hasn't been enough
    for you!!
    
    > You'll find this hard to believe, but I am appalled by the notion of
    > rape, defined as a sexual act perpetrated without consent, and need no
    > ideological redefinition for the idea to gain further opprobrium.
    
    I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe.  You say you are appalled by rape,
    yet you give the flimsiest of all possible reasons to disbelieve 
    the physical pain and suffering of rape victims.
    
    What a crock.

    RE: .93  Gerald
    
    > Are you admitting that rape without pain exists?  Do you admit that
    > rape without violence exists?
    
    As I've stated repeatedly, rape (in general) is a violent crime.
    
    I've never stated that the act is NOT rape unless there is violence,
    nor have I stated that if violence is EVER present in any situation, 
    then rape has occurred (somehow.)
    
    RAPE (IN GENERAL) IS A VIOLENT CRIME.  (Like I said.)

    <sina qua non is victim is unwilling>
    I think it would be useful (and more encompassing) to enlarge the sine
    qua non a bit to include "or unable to make an informed judgement" in
    which case it would read ...

    the sine qua non of rape is that the victim is either unwilling to
    participate in the act(s) or is unable to make an informed judgement
    about participation.
    
    this latter would include children, and adults unconscious, drunk, or
    otherwise unable to give informed consent.
    
    I think that the definition might want to be wider yet, but hope that
    agreement can be reached on this before proceeding further.

    It's absolutely amazing to me that some people can't accept that, at
    the very least, rape is likely to be done with 'strong or rough force'
    (even if the force isn't strong enough to break a limb or cause a
    death.)
    
    It's absolutely appalling that people would deny the physical pain
    and suffering of rape victims because of a difference of opinion
    on what (precisely) constitutues "ROUGH"ness.
    
    It's pathetic.
    

    re .94
    
>    of violence, I admit.  I've been using the dictionary definition,
>    while you have devised your own definition of violence (from God
    
    This is manifest garbage.  I've clearly shown, using your words, how
    your definition has changed to suit whatever you point was at the time. 
    You contradict yourself and claim you're using a dictionary definition
    - and you've got the gall to acuse me of being out of it!?!
    
    Show me where I defined violence.
    
>    > You seem to use pain and violence interchangeably.  They are not
>    > interchangeable. 
    
>    Nonsense.  You're still very confused.
    
    Gee, others pick up on the same point, but we're all wrong, aren't we. 
    How presumptuous of us.
    
>    Wow.  You've found a new excuse to disbelieve a rape victim!!  "Well,
>    dear, we don't believe you've been raped because there may possibly
>    be a disagreement on the definitions of the terms being used.  Now,
>    stop writhing in pain and shut up."
    
    Not at all. This is not new.  It is exactly the attitude the courts
    will take when your victim tries to have the alleged offender
    prosecuted and jailed.  "OK, you say you were raped.  What, exactly,
    happened?"
    
>    I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe.  You say you are appalled by rape,
>    yet you give the flimsiest of all possible reasons to disbelieve 
>    the physical pain and suffering of rape victims.
    
    Why did I think you were going to say that?  Flimsy?  Robust.  Robust
    and necessary reasons to find out what did happen, as opposed to what
    the plaintiff says happened.
    
    I have great sympathy for rape victims.  I have no sympathy for people
    who say they were raped when they weren't.

    RE: .99  Simpson
    
    >> of violence, I admit.  I've been using the dictionary definition,
    >> while you have devised your own definition of violence (from God
    
    > This is manifest garbage.  I've clearly shown, using your words, how
    > your definition has changed to suit whatever you point was at the time. 
    
    Nonsense.  I never gave you a definition of rape until I reposted the
    dictionary definition I've been using all along.  My comments fit the
    defintion all along (and they still do.)
    
    > Show me where I defined violence.
    
    Hey, you claimed I defined it.  Show me where I did this (besides
    reposting the dictionary definition.)
    
    > Gee, others pick up on the same point, but we're all wrong, aren't we. 
    > How presumptuous of us.
    
    Nope.  Just wrong.
    
    > Not at all. This is not new.  It is exactly the attitude the courts
    > will take when your victim tries to have the alleged offender
    > prosecuted and jailed.  "OK, you say you were raped.  What, exactly,
    > happened?"
    
    I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the same attitude you've shown
    here is the *problem* we still face in our legal system.  Thanks.
    Rape victims aren't believed.  They are guilty (of lying) until
    proven innocent.
    
    > Why did I think you were going to say that?  Flimsy?  Robust.  Robust
    > and necessary reasons to find out what did happen, as opposed to what
    > the plaintiff says happened.
    
    Again, rape victims are guilty (of lying) until proven innocent.
    
    > I have great sympathy for rape victims.  I have no sympathy for people
    > who say they were raped when they weren't.
    
    Now we (finally) get down to the real issue.  It's not about definitions.
    It's about discounting whatever rape victims say (because rape victims
    are guilty of lying until proven innocent.)
    
    Yeah, you have a lot of sympathy for the victims, alright.  You're
    far more comfort to the poor innocent rapists who may actually have
    to pay for their crimes.

    Well, Simpson, I'm glad you finally cut through the BS to admit that
    the issue here is NOT about definitions of violence, rape, etc.
    
    It's *really* about finding ways to disbelieve rape victims (and to
    discount their physical suffering) to protect poor innocent rapists
    who ONLY had simple sex, after all, with the minor difference that
    the woman didn't consent to it.  (Why ruin a poor innocent rapists
    life since you doubt he actually used FORCE <gasp!> or anything like
    that.  He just 'got off,' for God's sake.  She'll get over it.)
    
    Pfffft!

    re .99
    
>    > Gee, others pick up on the same point, but we're all wrong, aren't we. 
>    > How presumptuous of us.
    
>    Nope.  Just wrong.
    
    This speaks for itself.
    
>    I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the same attitude you've shown
>    here is the *problem* we still face in our legal system.  Thanks.
>    Rape victims aren't believed.  They are guilty (of lying) until
>    proven innocent.
    
    There is no problem with the legal system.  It treats ALL plaintiffs
    this way.  The accused is innocent until proven guilty; the prosecution
    must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    
    Are you suggesting that this system is flawed, or that rape should be
    exempt from the rules of evidence?
    
>    Again, rape victims are guilty (of lying) until proven innocent.
    
    Nope.  But their claim, like all such claims, must be tested.  And one
    of the tests is (surprise, surprise): what do they mean when they say
    they were raped, and is that in accord with what is understood to be
    rape?
    
>    Yeah, you have a lot of sympathy for the victims, alright.  You're
>    far more comfort to the poor innocent rapists who may actually have
>    to pay for their crimes.
    
    'Tis true I believe in the legal maxim that it is better to let 10
    guilty people go free than convict an innocent.  But you, apparently,
    would have us discard our notions of justice and have the accused prove
    their innocence.

    RE: .101  Simpson
    
    >>> Gee, others pick up on the same point, but we're all wrong, aren't we. 
    >>> How presumptuous of us.
    
    >> Nope.  Just wrong.
    
    > This speaks for itself.
    
    Pretty shocking and horrifying that a woman has the GALL to assert that
    2 or 3 other people might be <gasp!> wrong about something.  (What is
    this world coming to when women have this kind of nerve, eh?)
    
    > There is no problem with the legal system.  It treats ALL plaintiffs
    > this way.  The accused is innocent until proven guilty; the prosecution
    > must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    
    BS!  Other crime victims are treated (by the legal system) as though
    the crime really did happen - it's only a matter of proving it.
    
    Rape victims are the ones treated as though they are guilty (of lying)
    until proven innocent.
    
    > Are you suggesting that this system is flawed, or that rape should be
    > exempt from the rules of evidence?
    
    The system is flawed (when it presumes that women in general are liars
    when accusing rape.)  It's downright bigotry.
    
    > Nope.  But their claim, like all such claims, must be tested.  And one
    > of the tests is (surprise, surprise): what do they mean when they say
    > they were raped, and is that in accord with what is understood to be
    > rape?
    
    Well, you've claimed that violence is not a condition of rape, so why
    do they have to prove they're in physical pain for you to accept that
    this is so (without all the lame excuses about definitions, etc.)??
    
    > 'Tis true I believe in the legal maxim that it is better to let 10
    > guilty people go free than convict an innocent.  But you, apparently,
    > would have us discard our notions of justice and have the accused prove
    > their innocence.
    
    Well, in the case of rapists, nearly all of them are let go (except for
    a rare few here and there.)  I'm sure that makes you happy.
    
    So what if a woman has sex against her will (and feels pain,) right?
    Why should sex ruin a poor innocent rapist's life?  She'll get over
    it.  It's just sex (her pain is probably a toothache.)

    Ahah, so Suzanne's agenda finally comes to light.  She wants to throw
    out the Constitution and the presumption of innocence in the name of  
    her cause. 
    
    Fat chance.
    
    Mike

    RE: .103  Mike
    
    > Ahah, so Suzanne's agenda finally comes to light.  She wants to throw
    > out the Constitution and the presumption of innocence in the name of  
    > her cause. 
    
    Boldfaced lies won't help your (or Simpson's) position, Mike.
    
    I'm surprised to see you resort to this.
    

    re .102
    
>    Pretty shocking and horrifying that a woman has the GALL to assert that
>    2 or 3 other people might be <gasp!> wrong about something.  (What is
>    this world coming to when women have this kind of nerve, eh?)
    
    Suzanne, your slip is showing.  This is twice now that you've asserted
    that your sex has somehow influenced my argument.  Getting a touch
    defensive, are we, because we have been caught telling untruthes and
    want to divert attention?  No, not you.
    
>    Rape victims are the ones treated as though they are guilty (of lying)
>    until proven innocent.
    
    Indeed, the nerve of the courts, asking for evidence upon which to
    convict.  And, of course, no woman has ever falsely claimed to have
    been raped.  Mustn't let the rules of evidence interfere with our
    feelings now, must we?
    
>    Well, you've claimed that violence is not a condition of rape, so why
    
    Oh, dear, you've confused me with someone else (I explicitly reserved
    judgement on the question of non-violent rape)  But never mind, don't
    let the facts get in the way of your argument.
    
>    Well, in the case of rapists, nearly all of them are let go (except for
>    a rare few here and there.)  I'm sure that makes you happy.
    
    You love walking the fine line, don't you?  But, then, I'm a white
    male, so in your brave new world I don't have the right to be offended
    by such outrageous assertions as this, do I?

    re: .102
    	There are many cases (nothing to do with rape) where it is clear 
    that either one party is guilty of (crime X) or the other party is
    guilty of perjury. There have been cases of assault, arson, theft,
    where it has been proven that the damage was self-inflicted, and the
    court has a right to consider the possibility in those cases.
    
    	On the current system it is fairly common that neither is
    convicted. Would you prefer a reversal of the rules of evidence such
    that there was a reasonable chance that both would be convicted?
    
    	In rape cases it is almost always clear (unless there are the
    sort of semantic misunderstandings we gave seen here recently) that
    either one party is guilty of rape or the other party is guilty of
    perjury. With "innocent until proven guilty" neither party may be
    imprisoned. If the court case is regarded as a contest then exactly one
    party would be the winner.

    RE: .105  Simpson
    
    > Getting a touch defensive, are we, because we have been caught 
    > telling untruthes and want to divert attention?  No, not you.
    
    Speak for yourself.  You haven't caught me telling a single untruth,
    pal (except in your dreams.)
    
    > Indeed, the nerve of the courts, asking for evidence upon which to
    > convict.  
    
    I never claimed that evidence shouldn't be expected to get a conviction
    in rape cases.
    
    > And, of course, no woman has ever falsely claimed to have
    > been raped.  Mustn't let the rules of evidence interfere with our
    > feelings now, must we?
    
    Well, I guess you think no man has ever lied when he denied committing
    a crime, eh?  (When it comes to rape, though, it's best to let nearly
    all the men go free, though, since it's just simple sex with the minor
    difference that the woman didn't consent.)
    
    >> Well, you've claimed that violence is not a condition of rape, so why
    
    > Oh, dear, you've confused me with someone else (I explicitly reserved
    > judgement on the question of non-violent rape)  But never mind, don't
    > let the facts get in the way of your argument.
    
    A clever dodge of my question, Simpson.  Nice trick.  (Your argument
    is so weak, you need all the help you can get from tricks.)
    
    > You love walking the fine line, don't you?  But, then, I'm a white
    > male, so in your brave new world I don't have the right to be offended
    > by such outrageous assertions as this, do I?
    
    I never mentioned your rights, Simpson.  You can be as offended as
    you like.  You've demonstrated the contempt you feel for rape victims
    (in general.)  Your contempt is noted.
    
    After using dictionary definitions to define rape (in general) as a
    violent crime, I've shown that your true concern is not about the
    standardization of these definitions.  It's just another smoke screen.
    
    Thanks very much for your cooperation.

    re .97
    
    <...the very least, rape is likely to be done with 'strong or rough
    <force'
    
    I think I understand what you have in mind and if it is that you are
    only thinking of adults then I agree that rape is likely to have been
    done with 'strong or rough force'. I don't think the same holds true
    when children are the victims.

    Broadening the victims to include children suggests a rather different
    picture, namely that many, many -my hunch is the majority of- rape
    victimizations do _not_ involve 'strong or rough force'. 

    I do not have objectives statistics to support the assertion that the
    majority of rapes are perpetrated on minors but I do believe it is
    generally accepted that each year there are many more victims of
    childhood sexual abuse than adult rape victims. 

    Starting with that as a -sort of- premise I don't think it is difficult
    to conclude that a _huge_ number of (statutory) rape cases do not
    involve 'strong or rough  force'. In particular for those children 
    who are sexually abused by the same person(s) over and over again for
    many years, 'strong or rough force' is less likely.

    As an illustration ...
    I know of a young teenager who lived with her father as his lover for
    several years (as it happens, with her mother's knowledge). She had
    sexual intercourse with her father on a regular basis. I'm sure that
    the first n episodes had some elements of pain; I feel equally
    confident that after a shortish while the intercourse was without
    'strong or rough force. Yet it is clearly rape. The emotion trauma are
    egregious and the psychological impact horrific, but no physical pain.

    As another example, ...
    I have a friend who did some graduate level research on sexual abuse.
    Included in her study was a man who had been 'raped' approximately 500
    times over the ten years from 6 to 15. In his case, (statutory) rape
    meant either doing fellato to others much older, or receiving fellatio
    from an adult during the boy's first several years of puberty. Not
    once was strong or rough force applied.

    If those examples are more representative of childhood rape than the 'more
    traditional' examples of rape that I think you have in mind, then it is
    less clear that "rape is likely to have been done with 'strong or
    rough force'"
    
    But of course, by the time you read this it is too late for it to have
    any impact because the discussion has gone far beyond that point. Oh
    well

    RE: .108  Herb
    
    > I think I understand what you have in mind and if it is that you are
    > only thinking of adults then I agree that rape is likely to have been
    > done with 'strong or rough force'.
    
    In a few of my earlier notes in this string, I did make mention of rape
    to mentally competant and majority age persons (in general.)
    
    

    RE: .103  Mike
    
    Now that I'm over the shock of seeing you resort to a boldfaced lie,
    I'll address your statement again...
    
    I'd like rape victims to be treated like other victims of crime
    (where they are presumed to have suffered from a crime, but it
    STILL takes evidence, etc., to prove it.)
    
    This doesn't change the "innocent until proven guilty" situation
    for the accused at all!
    
    I'd like to see our legal system STOP treating rape accusers as
    though they are "guilty until proven innocent" for coming forward
    to report the rape.  Then, it still has to be proved, of course
    - but without prejudice towards the accuser for being a female
    charging rape.
    
    By the way, prosecutors (and defense attorneys) very often know
    without a doubt (in their own minds) that an accused is guilty.
    They can't get a conviction unless they prove it, but they aren't
    required to THINK the person is innocent until proven guilty.

    re: .104

    I'm lying?   

    Well, let us have a look at what you said in .102, shall we, and then
    let's see who is more nearly correct, okay Suzanne?

    First, we have this entry...
     
    >BS!  Other crime victims are treated (by the legal system) as though
    >the crime really did happen - it's only a matter of proving it.
    >
    >Rape victims are the ones treated as though they are guilty (of lying)
    >until proven innocent.
    
    Then we are treated to this gem...

    >The system is flawed (when it presumes that women in general are liars
    >when accusing rape.)  It's downright bigotry.

    And finally we have this interesting vignette.
    
    >Well, in the case of rapists, nearly all of them are let go (except for
    >a rare few here and there.)  I'm sure that makes you happy.
    >
    >So what if a woman has sex against her will (and feels pain,) right?
    >Why should sex ruin a poor innocent rapist's life?  She'll get over
    >it.  It's just sex (her pain is probably a toothache.)

    All of which makes it clear to me, and I think any rational reader
    would agree, that you are *furious* that a mere accusation of rape is
    considered insufficient evidence to convict a man of the crime, and
    that the alleged perpetrator might be able to get off, because the
    state cannot prove the woman's allegations without more evidence. 

    From that I logically infer that you would like to see the rules of
    evidence, as guaranteed in the Constitution, changed as they apply to
    the crime of rape.  You see, under our system, the alleged perpetrator
    of a crime has the right to confront the person accusing him/her in a
    court of law.  And I think you would like to see that altered.

    Now then, as a husband and a father of two daughters, I am every bit as
    outraged as you that women are far too often victimized by rapists, and
    I frequently fear for their lives and well-being in that regard when I
    know they are in situations that are potentially dangerous.  Still, I
    cannot, in good conscience, advocate that we throw out one of our most
    cherished and valuable aspects of our system of law just so I can feel
    better.
    
    Mike 

    RE: .111  Mike
    
    > All of which makes it clear to me, and I think any rational reader
    > would agree,
    
    Mike, Mike, Mike - your fuzzy thinking is kinda sad, but please don't
    accuse others of suffering from the same affliction, ok?
    
    > ...that you are *furious* that a mere accusation of rape is
    > considered insufficient evidence to convict a man of the crime, and
    > that the alleged perpetrator might be able to get off, because the
    > state cannot prove the woman's allegations without more evidence. 
    
    Well, since I stated explicitly that rape crimes should be prosecuted
    with the same requirements for evidence as other crimes, your assumption
    is just plain silly.  (I'd say it's meanspirited, but I think you're
    basically a nice guy.)
    
    > From that I logically infer that you would like to see the rules of
    > evidence, as guaranteed in the Constitution, changed as they apply to
    > the crime of rape.
    
    Anything you infer from an incorrect assumption (on your part) is
    bound to be seriously flawed, as this demonstrates.  Tsk, Tsk.
    
    > You see, under our system, the alleged perpetrator
    > of a crime has the right to confront the person accusing him/her in a
    > court of law.  And I think you would like to see that altered.
    
    WHAT???  You made this up, too (out of the clear blue sky.)  I said
    nothing whatever about rape accusers not having to face the accused.
    What is wrong with you?
    
    > Still, I cannot, in good conscience, advocate that we throw out one 
    > of our most cherished and valuable aspects of our system of law just 
    > so I can feel better.
    
    NO one (including me) has asked you to do this.
    
    However, I do realize that it's far easier to yell about arguments
    I haven't made (and requests I've said nothing about) than to face
    the fact that the system treats women rape accusers differently
    (worse!) than other crime victims.
    
    Would your wife or daughters lie about being raped?  Well, our society
    presumes they would (if they ever came forward to report rape.)  They
    are women, after all.  Hell, they probably don't know the difference
    being fantasy and reality, either (even if your wife and daughters
    happen to be distinguished Law professors.)
    
    Do you like being the spouse and parent of people whom society assumes
    would most likely lie in this situation?  Doesn't that sound like a
    rather unfair assumption?

    re: .110

    This is a more reasoned reply, and has a much better flavor than your
    last one.

    On to business:

    >I'd like to see our legal system STOP treating rape accusers as
    >though they are "guilty until proven innocent" for coming forward
    >to report the rape.  Then, it still has to be proved, of course
    >- but without prejudice towards the accuser for being a female
    >charging rape.
    
    If this is what is happening, I'd like to see the same thing.  However,
    I see no evidence that indicates that police personnel and prosecutors,
    in general, are that unsympathetic to women who have been raped.  Not
    that one couldn't come up with some anecdotal evidence in one case or
    another.  If individuals are acting badly, then they need to have their
    behavior corrected.  But that is hardly sufficient reason to change the
    way the whole legal process works. 
    
    >By the way, prosecutors (and defense attorneys) very often know
    >without a doubt (in their own minds) that an accused is guilty.
    >They can't get a conviction unless they prove it, but they aren't
    >required to THINK the person is innocent until proven guilty.

    This one troubles me a bit.  You seem to be advocating that officers of
    the court be required to think in certain ways, even while doing
    his/her job that might require them to act differently.  Are you sure
    that this is what you want?  I can't even imagine how you could
    regulate this sort of thing.  Can you?  

    Mike

                        

    RE: .113  Mike
    
    > If individuals are acting badly, then they need to have their
    > behavior corrected.  But that is hardly sufficient reason to change the
    > way the whole legal process works. 
    
    Mike, no one here has asked that we change the way the whole legal
    process works, for God's sake.  I've asked that the legal system
    stop assuming that rape victims are guilty (of lying) until proven
    innocent (because it goes AGAINST the rest of our system.)
    
    >>By the way, prosecutors (and defense attorneys) very often know
    >>without a doubt (in their own minds) that an accused is guilty.
    >>They can't get a conviction unless they prove it, but they aren't
    >>required to THINK the person is innocent until proven guilty.

    >This one troubles me a bit.  You seem to be advocating that officers of
    >the court be required to think in certain ways, even while doing
    >his/her job that might require them to act differently.  Are you sure
    >that this is what you want?  I can't even imagine how you could
    >regulate this sort of thing.  Can you?  
    
    HUH??????  I'm talking about what the officers of the court THINK about
    the accused (and that sometimes they THINK the accused is guilty.)
    
    What on Earth made you assume I was looking to require that the officers
    of the court think anything (in particular)???  I was only commenting
    on what they DO think (sometimes) about people accused of crimes.
    
    What's the deal here??

    <Would your wife or daughters lie about being raped?  Well, our society
    <presumes they would (if they ever came forward to report rape.) 
    
    Our system of justice requires that proof of a crime be established.
    Our system of justice presumes that the accused is innocent
    till proven guilty.
    These have the implication in our system of justice of effectively
    or implicitly saying that the burden of proof lies on the person
    reporting the crime.
    This has the very, very sad implication of setting up that women and
    children (and the rare man) be subjected to psychological battering
    rams by the defense attorney and others.
    
    I think it is abyssmal, I think it is prehistoric, I think it is
    unspeakably unfair to women and children who have been raped.
    I would VERY much like to hear a better approach. (that would not
    violate defendants rights)

    re: .112

    >Well, since I stated explicitly that rape crimes should be prosecuted
    >with the same requirements for evidence as other crimes, your assumption
    >is just plain silly.  (I'd say it's meanspirited, but I think you're
    >basically a nice guy.)
    
    Suzanne, you didn't say this until after I entered .103.  Or if you
    did, I missed it.  Show me a pointer to something you wrote prior to
    your .102, and I shall consider myself properly chastened.

    >Anything you infer from an incorrect assumption (on your part) is
    >bound to be seriously flawed, as this demonstrates.  Tsk, Tsk.
    
    Hence, my assumption remains valid, for the moment at least.

    >> You see, under our system, the alleged perpetrator
    >> of a crime has the right to confront the person accusing him/her in a
    >> court of law.  And I think you would like to see that altered.
    
    >WHAT???  You made this up, too (out of the clear blue sky.)  I said
    >nothing whatever about rape accusers not having to face the accused.
    >What is wrong with you?
    
    Nothing.  I merely expressed an opinion based on a logical deduction
    that follows from what I believed you were advocating.

    >> Still, I cannot, in good conscience, advocate that we throw out one 
    >> of our most cherished and valuable aspects of our system of law just 
    >> so I can feel better.
    
    >NO one (including me) has asked you to do this.
    
    In so many words, you have not.  What you have done is grouse about the
    way the current system works, and said you want to change it.  Since
    you didn't elucidate to what extent you wished to change the system,
    and since you were expressing you thoughts in rather strong language, I
    might, perhaps, be forgiven for assuming you wanted to change the
    system on a rather large scale. 

    >However, I do realize that it's far easier to yell about arguments
    >I haven't made (and requests I've said nothing about) than to face
    >the fact that the system treats women rape accusers differently
    >(worse!) than other crime victims.
    
    As I said in my last reply, I am unaware of any evidence that this
    happens regularly.

    >Would your wife or daughters lie about being raped? 

    I don't know.  I would like to think not, but given they are human
    beings with all the flaws we are heir to, it certainly is not an
    absolute impossibility.

    >Well, our society presumes they would (if they ever came forward to
    >report rape.) 

    As I have indicated above, I see no such pandemic situation.


    >They are women, after all.  Hell, they probably don't know the
    >difference being fantasy and reality, either (even if your wife and
    >daughters happen to be distinguished Law professors.)
    
    Now you are getting insulting to me and to my family.  Please stop.

    >Do you like being the spouse and parent of people whom society assumes
    >would most likely lie in this situation?  Doesn't that sound like a
    >rather unfair assumption?

    Suzanne, the only unfair assumptions I see being made at this point
    are your own.

    Mike

    re: .113

    Suzzane, what can I say?  We both use the same language, we both write
    the same words, but yet it seems like we are seeing different meanings
    in the words we write.  Perhaps we would both be better served if we
    just disengage from this discussion while we can still be civil to one
    another.  Perhaps we can try again some other time.

    What do you say?

    Mike

    RE: .116  Mike Smith
    
    > Suzanne, you didn't say this until after I entered .103.  Or if you
    > did, I missed it.  Show me a pointer to something you wrote prior to
    > your .102, and I shall consider myself properly chastened.
    
    Your comments were entered in .111 (after I had stated something
    explicitly to the contrary in .110) - so you are to be chastised
    for it.
    
    >>Anything you infer from an incorrect assumption (on your part) is
    >>bound to be seriously flawed, as this demonstrates.  Tsk, Tsk.
    
    >Hence, my assumption remains valid, for the moment at least.
    
    It's now been shown to be invalid.  Glad we got this settled.
    
    > Nothing.  I merely expressed an opinion based on a logical deduction
    > that follows from what I believed you were advocating.
    
    You based your "logical deduction" on a mistaken assumption.  Not good.
    
    >>NO one (including me) has asked you to do this.
    
    >In so many words, you have not.  What you have done is grouse about the
    >way the current system works, and said you want to change it.
    
    So you just assumed I wanted to change the whole doggone thing.  (Gee,
    it's as good a mistaken assumption as any, I guess, and it makes for
    an easier target for a tirade.)
    
    > ...I might, perhaps, be forgiven for assuming you wanted to change the
    > system on a rather large scale. 
    
    You might.  (We'll see.)  :>
    
    >> Would your wife or daughters lie about being raped? 

    > I don't know.  I would like to think not, but given they are human
    > beings with all the flaws we are heir to, it certainly is not an
    > absolute impossibility.
    
    Our legal system would treat them as though it were probable.
    
    >>They are women, after all.  Hell, they probably don't know the
    >>difference being fantasy and reality, either (even if your wife and
    >>daughters happen to be distinguished Law professors.)
    
    >Now you are getting insulting to me and to my family.  Please stop.
    
    Sorry you misunderstood this.  It was a direct reference to the way
    Anita Hill was treated when she accused Clarence Thomas of sexual
    harassment.  (It was also a reference to the fact that a common
    defense for rape accusations is the accuser's presumed insanity and/or 
    inability to distinguish fantasy from reality.)
    
    As women, your wife and daughters are subject to this same prejudice
    (and it's the prejudice that I'm against, not your family.)
    
    Please cease and desist from making wild assumptions about what I
    think (or am saying) until you check with me.  It's absolutely
    pointless to keep having to answer to your mistaken beliefs in
    my position!!!

    RE: .117  Mike Smith
    
    > re: .113
    > Suzzane, what can I say?
    
    I didn't write .113, so I'm not sure what this reply is supposed to
    be addressing.
    
    I do agree we should cool it.  Nearly all your vehement arguments
    have been about things I didn't say (and don't believe,) so obviously,
    further argument is kinda pointless.
    
    When/if you ever care to address what I've really been saying, then
    perhaps we can try again sometime.

    re: .117
    
    No you didn't write .113.  You wrote .114, and that was the reply to
    which I was rejoining.
    
    As regards to what you have "really" been saying, I am still quite as
    mystified as before.  
    
    'Nuff said.
    
    Mike

    re: .118

    Well, it's like this.  I wrote and entered my .111 before you I read
    your entries in .110. If you will notice, my .111 refers directly to 
    an entry of yours earlier than .110.  So, based on what I knew at the
    time, my comments were still valid.  Therefore, I hereby absolve myself
    of any charges of mean-spiritedness.  

    So there!

    As regards Anita Hill's entry into the discussion, well, I guess I my
    decoder ring needs a tune-up, because I had no idea she had anything to
    do with the crime of rape and the our legal system.
    
    Mike

    RE: .120  Mike Smith
    
    > So, based on what I knew at the time, my comments were still valid.  
    
    They were still wild assumptions, though, of course.  :>
    
    > Therefore, I hereby absolve myself of any charges of mean-spiritedness.  
    
    Now, now.  I told you before that I wouldn't accuse you of such a 
    thing (since you are basically a nice guy, IMO.)
    
    > As regards Anita Hill's entry into the discussion, well, I guess I my
    > decoder ring needs a tune-up, because I had no idea she had anything to
    > do with the crime of rape and the our legal system.
    
    She has much to do with examples of the prejudice women receive in our
    system (legal and otherwise) when they come forward with accusations
    about rape or sexual harassment.  It's the same prejudice the women
    in your family would be faced with (in similar circumstances,) which
    is why I brought it up.
    
    All clear.  OK?

    re .122
    
>    She has much to do with examples of the prejudice women receive in our
>    system (legal and otherwise) when they come forward with accusations
>    about rape or sexual harassment.  It's the same prejudice the women
>    in your family would be faced with (in similar circumstances,) which
>    is why I brought it up.
    
    Actually this appears to be yet another example of how you want to
    have it where one woman's testimony without any credible evidence
    to back it up should be taken as gospel and used to hang the
    "offending" male.
    
    fred();

    RE: .123  Fred
    
    > Actually this appears to be yet another example of how you want to
    > have it where one woman's testimony without any credible evidence
    > to back it up should be taken as gospel and used to hang the
    > "offending" male.
    
    Nope.  This is yet another example of how people argue about all sorts
    of things they IMAGINE I might think (because they can't argue against
    what I've actually written.)
    
    I'm complaining about the way they treated Anita Hill.  (They accepted
    - as a defense for Thomas - that she doesn't know fantasy from reality,
    which is nothing more than an offensive, bigoted stereotype about
    women.)
    
    If they had acted without this bigotry, they would have treated her
    like the respected Republican, conservative Law professor that she
    is (and would have weighed her testimony against his, then would
    have voted for his confirmation according to their impressions about
    the two speakers.)  Perhaps Thomas would have been confirmed anyway,
    but at least they wouldn't have displayed bigotry against her.
    
    (Remember, Thomas was NOT on trial for this.  He was up for a job.
    The committee should have been able to vote to deny him the job on
    the basis of what Prof. Hill said - or confirmed him.  They didn't
    OWE him the job.)

    re .109
    <In a few of my earlier notes in this string, I did make mention of rape
    <to mentally competant and majority age persons (in general.)

    Yes I found a couple of references in 816.62 (couldn't find any others)
    
    <The lack of consent is crucial to the definition of the rape of a
    <mentally competant and/or majority age person, true.  

    That sentence certainly talks about the definition of rape for a
    mentally competent adult. Did you intend for that sentence to be
    restricting _all_ of your rape discussions to mentally competent
    adults? If you did, I'm not sure I understand the 2 sentences right
    after that sentence...

    <However, we aren't forced to limit ourselves to only one crucial
    <element in this definition.  I'm saying that rape is (in general) also
    <a violent crime.
    
    Because "rape (in general)" certainly seems to be talking about rape in
    general rather than rape of adult mental competents.

    And then a bit later you said
    
    <...Again, the lack of consent (for a mentally competant and/or majority
    <age person is a crucial component.)

    So I interpreted your rebuttal of Mike's statements to be a limited
    rebuttal in the sense that it was stating that consent is a crucial
    component for a mentally competent adult. This by implication, I think,
    suggests you think there are rapes for which consent is not the issue,
    and that you include other rapes (like "rape of children" perhaps?) in
    your thinking when you say "rape (in general). (all by way of
    explaining the relevance of .108)
    
    Oh, by the way, when I was doing research to get a more complete
    understanding of just what kind(s) of rape you had been talking about
    above, I came across the following ...

    816.43
    <In my case, I'm not saying that every person on the planet who has ever
    <been raped experienced it as violence.  I suppose it is possible for
    <a rapist to take the sort of care to be gentle while raping that a loved
    <one would take (when accessing a private part of a person's body) - but
    <I think it's extremely, extremely rare.

    Now it would be immensely human to want to have that statement
    grandfathered into "mentally competent adults" but I trust you will
    understand that I am reluctant to consider that a reasonable
    dispensation. (since the first reference to mentally competant I could
    find was in entry 91)
    Be that as it may, gentle, considerate, tender, caring rape is not
    rare at all among childhood rape victims. (which was my point in .108)
    Such rape is none the less horrific, and psychologically devastating.
    Indeed it is perhaps even MORE DEVASTATING -certainly more insidious-
    than violent rape. In spite of -indeed partly because of- the absence
    of 'strong or rough force'.

    re .124
    
>    I'm complaining about the way they treated Anita Hill.  (They accepted
>    - as a defense for Thomas - that she doesn't know fantasy from reality,
>    which is nothing more than an offensive, bigoted stereotype about
>    women.)
>    
>    If they had acted without this bigotry, they would have treated her
>    like the respected Republican, conservative Law professor that she
>    is (and would have weighed her testimony against his, then would
>    have voted for his confirmation according to their impressions about
>    the two speakers.)  Perhaps Thomas would have been confirmed anyway,
>    but at least they wouldn't have displayed bigotry against her.
    
    As I read this, because the committee didn't agree with _you_
    and the rest of A.H.'s supporters then they are a bunch of
    biggots?  Because they chose to give the accused ( Thomas ) the
    benefit of the doubt because there was not one shred of credible
    evidence to back up A.H's story then they are biggots?  Wasn't it 
    you who was complaining not too many notes back about Label-and-attack?
    
    I didn't see anyone treating Thomas with kid gloves.  He took some
    pretty nasty shots himself.  But I guess that Anita should have 
    been treated with decency and respect do a *woman*, huh?
    
    If you want to look at things that way,  Jennifer Flowers had a *lot*
    more cooberating evidence that Anita Hill did.
    
    fred();

    RE: .126  Fred
    
    > As I read this, because the committee didn't agree with _you_
    > and the rest of A.H.'s supporters then they are a bunch of
    > biggots? 
    
    You read this dead wrong.
    
    I stated specifically that they STILL could have confirmed Thomas
    after treating Anita Hill without bigotry.
    
    > Because they chose to give the accused ( Thomas ) the
    > benefit of the doubt because there was not one shred of credible
    > evidence to back up A.H's story then they are biggots? 
    
    NO, you are absolutely dead wrong (again) about what I wrote.
    
    I only wanted them to refrain from using bigoted stereotypes (against
    Anita Hill) as a defense for Thomas.  If they had still confirmed
    Thomas afterward, FINE.
    
    > Wasn't it you who was complaining not too many notes back about 
    > Label-and-attack?
 
    I haven't called anyone here a bigot.  (I trust that no one here was
    on the Senate committee at the time of the Thomas hearings.)
    
    > I didn't see anyone treating Thomas with kid gloves.  He took some
    > pretty nasty shots himself.  
    
    They treated Thomas with NOTHING but kid gloves.  Even the Democrats
    were kind to him (especially after his whine about being lynched.)
    
    > But I guess that Anita should have been treated with decency and 
    > respect do a *woman*, huh?
 
    If Anita Hill had been treated with as much respect as the Senators
    treated Clarence Thomas, I wouldn't be mentioning it here now.
    (They didn't!)
    
    > If you want to look at things that way,  Jennifer Flowers had a *lot*
    > more cooberating evidence that Anita Hill did.
 
    Ms. Flowers' dates/times for the claimed motel incident (or whatever,)
    did NOT pan out.  The press followed up on her claims and the story
    did not jive.  However, if you like accusations against Presidential
    candidates, then you should be happy to believe that Bush had an
    affair (since it was a man who accused him, and surely he wasn't
    fantasizing.)

    
    
    THIS IS NOT A NOTE.
    
    fred();

    I'm going to post my original comments again for you, Fred.  Please
    comment (next time) on what I actually write, not on what you WISH I'd
    write:
    
    "I'm complaining about the way they treated Anita Hill.  (They accepted
    - as a defense for Thomas - that she doesn't know fantasy from reality,
    which is nothing more than an offensive, bigoted stereotype about
    women.)
    
    "If they had acted without this bigotry, they would have treated her
    like the respected Republican, conservative Law professor that she
    is (and would have weighed her testimony against his, then would
    have voted for his confirmation according to their impressions about
    the two speakers.)  Perhaps Thomas would have been confirmed anyway,
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    but at least they wouldn't have displayed bigotry against her."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    
    it's kid of hard to tell just *what* you are trying to say Suzanne.
    When someone tries to respond to what you write, then you deny that
    that was what you wrote or at that was not what you meant.  
    
    Then at other times you seem to be arguing both sides of he fence
    depending on which side of the fence suits our purpose at the time.
    
    fred();

    RE: .130  Fred
    
    > it's kid of hard to tell just *what* you are trying to say Suzanne.
    > When someone tries to respond to what you write, then you deny that
    > that was what you wrote or at that was not what you meant.  
    
    When people invent things to argue about (instead of responding to
    what I actually wrote,) it's entirely appropriate for me to point
    it out to them.  Why should I defend positions I don't hold (and
    haven't espoused.)  It would be pretty pointless.
    
    > Then at other times you seem to be arguing both sides of he fence
    > depending on which side of the fence suits our purpose at the time.
    
    The problem is - I don't fit the mold for the stereotype you've
    created about Liberals/feminists/etc. (so you're totally confused.)
    
    The stereotype is a crock anyway, which is why you're having this
    problem.

    re .131
    
>    The problem is - I don't fit the mold for the stereotype you've
>    created about Liberals/feminists/etc. (so you're totally confused.)
    
    On the contrary Suzanne, you're a shining example.
    
>    The stereotype is a crock anyway, which is why you're having this
>    problem.
    
    I think that's what you would *like* us to believe.
    
    fred();

    RE: .132  Fred
    
    >> The problem is - I don't fit the mold for the stereotype you've
    >> created about Liberals/feminists/etc. (so you're totally confused.)
    
    > On the contrary Suzanne, you're a shining example.
    
    If I'd said even 1/10th the things you've convinced yourself I've said
    (in spite of the overwhelming evidence that I have NOT,) this might
    be the case.  It's not true, though, and you don't have the slightest
    idea how to handle it.  Your arguments are geared to respond only
    to your own stereotypes (and nothing else.)
    
    >> The stereotype is a crock anyway, which is why you're having this
    >> problem.
    
    > I think that's what you would *like* us to believe.
    
    Your stereotype involves all sorts of things I don't say nor believe,
    so I know the stereotype is a crock.  (I don't feel the slightest need
    to prove it to you.)
    
    If you confined your arguments to what I actually write (and believe,)
    you wouldn't have the slightest idea what to say to me.

    
    reply .133
    
>    Your stereotype involves all sorts of things I don't say nor believe,
>    so I know the stereotype is a crock.  (I don't feel the slightest need
>    to prove it to you.)
    
    So we're back to the point where I have to prove my point to your
    satisfaction or else I loose.
    
>    If you confined your arguments to what I actually write (and believe,)
>    you wouldn't have the slightest idea what to say to me.
    
    I think this statement alone speaks volumes.
    
    fred();

    RE: .134  Fred
    
    >> Your stereotype involves all sorts of things I don't say nor believe,
    >> so I know the stereotype is a crock.  (I don't feel the slightest need
    >> to prove it to you.)
    
    > So we're back to the point where I have to prove my point to your
    > satisfaction or else I loose.
    
    Nope.  If the only way you can argue with me is to make all sorts of
    wild (and patently false) accusations about what I've said (based on
    your absurd stereotypes,) then you're engaging in pointless nonsense.
    
    I tried to show this to you once before by asking how it would be
    if I interpreted every word you said as (something like) "Fred wants
    all women to be raped," and you went nuts.  You asked moderators to
    disallow it (as if I'd really said it.)  The analogy went totally
    over your head.
    
    Watch - even now, you're going to claim I've really said this about
    you (and you'll wail endlessly to moderators about it.)
    
    You have a reading disability when it comes to certain people's words.
    You are incapable of comprehending anything beyond your own stereotypes
    (enough to see some types of people as individual human beings.)
    
    It's a terrible problem for you.  I hope you fix it someday.

    
    re .135
    
>    Watch - even now, you're going to claim I've really said this about
>    you (and you'll wail endlessly to moderators about it.)
>    
>    You have a reading disability when it comes to certain people's words.
>    You are incapable of comprehending anything beyond your own stereotypes
>    (enough to see some types of people as individual human beings.)
>    
>    It's a terrible problem for you.  I hope you fix it someday.
>
    
    
    I think I'll decline to get down in the muck with you Suzanne.  Mainly
    since I've long noted that personal attacks *by* certain people in
    this notes file are not necessarily the same as personal attacks
    *against* those same people.
    
    fred();

    RE: .134  Fred
    
    >> If you confined your arguments to what I actually write (and believe,)
    >> you wouldn't have the slightest idea what to say to me.
    
    > I think this statement alone speaks volumes.
    
    You wouldn't know how to argue *against* what I'm saying (which is
    why you stick to your old stereotypes instead, and rant against those.)
    
    It's a sort of "short cut" for you (so you don't have to think about
    reacting to me as an individual human being.)

    RE: .136  Fred
    
    > ... I've long noted that personal attacks *by* certain people in
    > this notes file are not necessarily the same as personal attacks
    > *against* those same people.
    
    See?  It went right over your head (yet again.)
    
    It's ok, Fred, if you never figure out that I'm an individual human
    being.  I no longer expect it of you, anyway.
    

.82> Well, my opinion is that rape (in general) is a violent crime, and 
.82> I'm using the dictionary definition for the word "violent" (as some
.82> others have requested.)  
    
    Being violent in general does not make it an act of violence.

.94> Well, unfortunately, we do seem to be using different definitions
.94> of violence, I admit.  I've been using the dictionary definition,
.94> while you have devised your own definition of violence (from God
    
    Really?  You have?
    
    That surprises me.  .86 anthologizes the various ways you've defined
    and characterized violence - not only are there about 5 distinct and
    seemingly conflicting defintions, none of them appear to have much to
    do with the definition in 816.25.  Are you using a different one?

.111> and I think any rational reader would agree
    
    Yes, but remember, the key word is rational.

    RE: .140  Mike Z.
    
    .94> I've been using the dictionary definition [of violent]...
    
    > Really?  You have?
    > That surprises me.
    
    I've only defined violence ONCE (and here's what I wrote): 
    
    .94> Here's the dictionary definition of violent:
    
    .94>violent, adj. 1 acting or done with strong, rough force: a violent
    .94>blow, violent exercise, a violent storm. syn: fierce, furious. 2 caused
    .94>by strong, rough force: a violent death. 3 showing or caused by very
    .94>strong feeling or action: violent language, a violent rage. syn:
    .94>vehement. 4 very great, severe, extreme: a violent pain, violent heat,
    .94>a violent headache. 5 that tends to distort meaning.

    RE: .139  Mike Z.
    
   .82> Well, my opinion is that rape (in general) is a violent crime, and 
   .82> I'm using the dictionary definition for the word "violent" (as some
   .82> others have requested.)  
    
   >  Being violent in general does not make it an act of violence.
    
    Rape (in general) is a violent crime, which means that many/most
    occurrences of rape invole "acting or done with strong OR rough 
    force," which is included in the dictionary definition of violent.

    RE: .141  Mike Z.
    
    > Yes, but remember, the key word is rational.
    
    Now, be nice to these folks.  They're trying their best to understand
    this issue, I'm sure.
    

    re:.142
    
    Are we having a problem communicating?
    
    If a crime is sometimes violent, or, as you say, violent in general,
    then that crime is sometimes not violent.
    
    It is therfore incorrect to state that the crime is one of violence,
    since it can and does occur without violence.

    RE: .145  Mike Z.
    
    > If a crime is sometimes violent, or, as you say, violent in general,
    > then that crime is sometimes not violent.
    
    If a crime is most often violent (per the dictionary definition of
    violent as "acting or done with strong OR rough force,") then it
    can be described as a violent crime.
    
    > It is therfore incorrect to state that the crime is one of violence,
    > since it can and does occur without violence.
    
    Not all murders include violence (it's possible to kill someone by
    dropping cyanide into food or drink without their knowledge,) yet
    it is still regarded as a violent crime.  The same applies to
    rape.

.146> violent as "acting or done with strong OR rough force,") then it
.146> can be described as a violent crime.
    
    Not if you want to be accurate.

    RE: .147  Mike Z.
    
    .146> violent as "acting or done with strong OR rough force,") then it
    .146> can be described as a violent crime.
    
    > Not if you want to be accurate.
    
    If you want to ascribe to the dictionary definition of violent, my
    statement *is* accurate (as accurate as describing murder as a violent
    crime although it is possible to commit murder without the use of
    the dictionary definition of violent.)
    

    Mike Z. - please answer this question:
    
    Do you consider murder a crime of violence?
    

    Surely, sometimes.  Even most of the time.
    
    That doesn't mean that one can truthfully classify murder as a crime
    of violence, for one who does that will be wrong on occasion.
    
    Murder is a crime of premeditated killing.
    
    Rape is a crime of sex without consent.

    RE: .150  Mike Z.
    
    >> Do you consider murder a crime of violence?
    
    > Surely, sometimes.  Even most of the time.
    
    The same is true of rape.
    
    > That doesn't mean that one can truthfully classify murder as a crime
    > of violence, for one who does that will be wrong on occasion.
    
    In your opinon, of course.  Murder (in general) is most often regarded
    as a violent crime in our culture.
    
    > Murder is a crime of premeditated killing.
    
    This is inaccurate.  "Premeditation" is a condition of murder in the
    first degree.  Other murder charges allow that the crime was NOT 
    premeditated (but was still murder.)
    
    Both rape and murder (in general) are crimes of violence (and are
    regarded as such by those who keep and report the stats on crime.)
    
    If you happen to ascribe to a non-standard definition of violent
    crime, that's your tough luck.
    
    For example, if you define "violent crime" as a crime in which 100%
    of all possible cases must be distinctly violent (making violence a
    necessary condition for the act to be called a crime,) then you're
    just confused.  Violence is not a necessary condition for rape or
    murder to be a crime.  Rape and murder are regarded as violent crimes
    in our culture, however.

    Sigh.
    
    You continue to call rape a violent crime, even while recognizing that
    not all rapes involve violence.
    
    If you can live with that contradiction, then so be it.

    RE: .152  Mike Z.
    
    > You continue to call rape a violent crime, even while recognizing that
    > not all rapes involve violence.
    
    Quite a few people in our society continue to call murder a violent
    crime, even while recognizing that not all murders involve violence.
    
    > If you can live with that contradiction, then so be it.
    
    Our culture (and our language) doesn't seem to regard it as a
    contradiction (to call murder a violent crime, for example) -
    but if this common use of our language bothers you, so be it.

    I was watching the movie "V. I. Warshawski" the other night. In it at one
    point while holding a gun to a mans head she grabbed him with a 'nut
    cracker' and squeezed information out of him. 
    
    Is this sexual assault?
    
    Is it rape?
    
    What should the penality be?
    
    What about a woman retaliating by a kick to the b*s for something said
    (NOT done). After all, the victum could be permanently injured.
    
    Comments?
    Steve

          <<< Note 816.154 by 43GMC::KEITH "Real men double clutch" >>>

>>    I was watching the movie "V. I. Warshawski" the other night. In it at one
>>    point while holding a gun to a mans head she grabbed him with a 'nut
>>    cracker' and squeezed information out of him. 
    
>>    Is this sexual assault?

       Assault?  Yes
       Sexual assault?  No
    
>>    Is it rape?

       No
    
>>    What should the penality be?

       The same as any other aggravated assault.
       
>>    What about a woman retaliating by a kick to the b*s for something said
>>    (NOT done). After all, the victum could be permanently injured.

       Aggravated assault.
       
>>    Comments?
>>    Steve

       In my opinion the rules for sexual assault/rape are fairly simple.
       If someone does not give consent or is incapable of giving consent
       and the perpetrator proceeds with a sexual act they are guilty of
       sexual assault or rape.  Violence, whether it be emotional, physical
       or mental is simply a means of making the case easier for an
       American jury to find someone guilty of the crime.

       Patrick

RE Note 816.155  Is sexual abuse/rape always 'violent' and other defini  
BSS::P_BADOVINAC                                     35 lines  17-AUG-1992 09:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          <<< Note 816.154 by 43GMC::KEITH "Real men double clutch" >>>

>>>    I was watching the movie "V. I. Warshawski" the other night. In it at one
>>>    point while holding a gun to a mans head she grabbed him with a 'nut
>>>    cracker' and squeezed information out of him. 
    
>>>    Is this sexual assault?

>       Assault?  Yes
>       Sexual assault?  No
    
So grabbing a woman by the breast, or vulva is NOT sexual assault?    
    
>>>    Is it rape?

>       No
    
    I agree
    
>>>    What should the penality be?

>       The same as any other aggravated assault.
    
    I guess we disagree because of the type of assault
       
>>>    What about a woman retaliating by a kick to the b*s for something said
>>>    (NOT done). After all, the victum could be permanently injured.

>       Aggravated assault.
    
    I disagree again. I think in our society if the roles were reversed,
    the penality/crime would be different (as I think it should)
       

Steve
    

    
 >>   If a crime is most often violent (per the dictionary definition of
 >>   violent as "acting or done with strong OR rough force,") then it
 >>   can be described as a violent crime.

	Suzanne, after reading through this excruciatingly pedantic series,
	I believe it does come down to just this, as you said.  Violence
	is defined as the abusive or unjust exercise of power.  How can
	rape be described as anything else but a violent crime?  I agree
	with you and salute your fortitude, at the very least.

	Diane

.157> Violence is defined as the abusive or unjust exercise of power.
    
    Whose definition of violence is that?

    Re: violence, definition of
    
    Enough.  Here, for all and sundry, is the verbatim definition of
    violence from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
    
    violence [pronunciation omitted] n [ME, fr. OF, fr. L. "violentia," fr.
    "violentus"] (13c)  1  a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or
    abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house)  b: an instance of
    violent treatment or procedure  2: injury by or as if by distortion,
    infringement, or profanation: OUTRAGE  3  a: intense, turbulent, or
    furious and often destructive action or force (the ~ of the storm)  b:
    vehement feeling or expression: FERVOR; also: an instance of such
    action or feeling  c: a clashing or jarring quality: DISCORDANCE  4:
    undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
    
    I refer the reader most specifically to definition 2 as being directly
    applicable to all forms of sexual abuse, whether by physical force or
    not.
    
    Now that an unarguably valid definition has been posted here, in this
    topic, where it won't be missed, may we please proceed to discussion of
    the issues instead of worrying to death the niggling non-issues???
    
    -dick

    Webster's Third New Internation Dictionary unabridged 1976 (since its
    publishing history shows every 5 years, it is likely that 3 editions have
    been published since then. In any case ...

    pg 2554
    1 a:exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare
        or in effecting an entrance into a house) 
      b:an instance of violent treatment or procedure. 
    2:  injury in the form of revoking, repudiation, distortion, infringement,
        or irreverence to a thing, notion, or quality fitly valued or
        observed <no violence has been done to expert military opinion - Sir
    	Winston Churchill> <did unconscious violence to the instincts of the
    	mystic - V.L. Parrington>
    3a: intense, turbulent or furious action, force, or feeling often
        destructive <hurled himself around the corner... with almost drunken
        violence - Liam O'Flaherty> 
     b: vehement feeling or expression : fervor,passion, fury <the violence of
    	a fluent orator whose temper ran away with him - V.A Froude> <violence
    	such as the normally placid New York art critics seldom resort to - R.
    	Coates
     c: an instance or show of such action or feeling: a tendency to violent
    	action <the mounting violences of the Whig rabble against their Tory
    	neighbors - Margaret Evans> 
     d: clashing, jarring discordant, or abrupt quality <certain freaks and
    	violences in Mr. Palgrave's criticism - Matthew Arnold> <the violence
    	of the contrasting colors> 
    4:	undue alteration of wording or sense (as in editing or interpreting a
    	text.

>>.157> Violence is defined as the abusive or unjust exercise of power.
    
>>    Whose definition of violence is that?


	The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
 

Are you folks STILL arguing dictionary definitions?

		Steve

    re .162 
    Gee. I thought that 816.160 def 4 opened up a whole new vista

    
    
    
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 816.12  Is sexual abuse/rape always 'violent' and other definiti  12 of 163
VMSSG::NICHOLS "Conferences are like apple barrels." 17 lines   7-AUG-1992 12:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    				.
    				.
    				.
    
    Do you guys agree that you have so much invested in _being right_ that
    there is not a snow-ball's chance in hell of reaching agreement?
    And unless agreement can be reached, temperate discussion of neither
    rape, nor child abuse will take place. Is that the goal?

>>       -< I didn't think it was about definitions 11 days ago, did you? >-

	Gee, the note's title is a tad misleading then, isn't it?

	

    If that reply is a measure of either your intelligence or your common
    sense then I will enjoy ignoring you from now on

 >>   If that reply is a measure of either your intelligence or your common
 >>   sense then I will enjoy ignoring you from now on


	Ooooh, I love multiple choice!

.157> Violence is defined as the abusive or unjust exercise of power.
.161> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

    Not according to the 1983 edition, p758 :

    violence n., 1. physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse
    or injury.  2. an act or instance of violent action of behavior.  3.
    great force or intensity.  4. damage; injury, as to meaning or feeling.
    5. vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

    And, for all those latecomers, we've had a working definition since
    816.25.  I'm not asking for definitions, I'm asking where new defini-
    tions, ones that disagree with 816.25, are coming from.

    So, where did the one in .157 come from ... ?

    Re: .168
    
    It's on page 1431 of the 1970 edition of the American Heritage, Mike,
    and it may appear in later editions.
    
    Given that the word appears on page 758 of your 1983 edition, I submit
    that (since the language obviously hasn't gotten any smaller) your
    dictionary is abridged and hence not as exhaustive as the larger
    edition.
    
    To forestall yet another "Oh, but..." argument, I will point out that
    the OED defines "violence" (def. 2) as "an instance or case of violent
    or severe treatment; a violent act or proceeding" and "violent" (def.
    4a) as "of actions: characterized by the doing of harm or injury." 
    Rape does harm; hence, it is violent.  QED.
    
    Can we PLEASE move on???
    
    -dick

.169> Rape does harm; hence, it is violent.  QED.
    
    Everything does harm.
    Everything must therefore be either rape, or violent, or both.
    
    What a revelation!  I've seen the light!  Halleluja!
    
    Praise be to the new-age Politically Correct idol-worship deity-person.

    In french it is easier:
    
    The translation for violence is violence, same meaning as in english.
    The translation for rape is viol . 
    	 It is clear, in the words, that a "viol" is "violence" either
    physical or emotional.
    
    	TS

    Re: .170
    
    Forget it.  I've had enough smartass comebacks to last me a while.
    
    -dick

    re .159
    
>    Now that an unarguably valid definition has been posted here, in this
    
    I could argue that an American dictionary is not necessarily unarguably
    valid, but that would be a nit.  As a working definition it will do.
    
    The point in my mind has never been whether rape is a violent crime or
    not.  In the general sense it is, and I'm not convinced that there can
    be rape without violence.
    
    The point always was that many of us object to its being exclusively
    defined as such, as opposed to the general meaning of sexual act(s)
    without consent.  As usual the feminists jumped in early on and tried
    to define it as a crime of violence, where violence is an abuse of male
    power, and the problem with that is twofold.
    
    In the first place it ignores the sexual content that differentiates
    rape from other crimes of violence.  One might ask why then we need a
    crime of rape at all, since a charge of assault causing grievous bodily
    harm or similar would then be equally appropriate.
    
    In the second place the definition of violence meaning an abuse of male
    power is too closely tied to radical feminist theories which deride men
    generally, and I for one object strenuously to being labelled a rapist,
    when I have never raped anyone, for no other reason than the accident
    of my sex.  If you don't believe that that is what these theories say
    then read Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon et al for yourself.

    RE: .173  Simpson
    
    > As usual the feminists jumped in early on and tried
    > to define it as a crime of violence, where violence is an abuse 
    > of male power,...
    
    Well, I guess I missed where "feminists" defined violence as an abuse
    of male power.  Please provide a quote and/or pointer.  Thanks.
    
    > In the second place the definition of violence meaning an abuse of male
    > power is too closely tied to radical feminist theories which deride men
    > generally, and I for one object strenuously to being labelled a rapist,
    > when I have never raped anyone, for no other reason than the accident
    > of my sex. 
    
    Wow.  You seem to be saying that the characterization of rape as a
    violent crime is a matter of labeling all men (including you) as rapists.
    
    So, if we deny that rape victims (in general) suffer violence at the hands
    of rapists, it would be less insulting to all men (including you)??
    
    Oh, by all means, let's deny the violence in rape (if it would keep
    from hurting your poor little feelings.)  Geeeeeeesh.

    Suzanne
     
    It looks to me that .173 is a slight gesture of
    accomodation/rapprochement.
    

.174>    Well, I guess I missed where "feminists" defined violence as an abuse 
.174>    of male power.  Please provide a quote and/or pointer.  Thanks.
    
I'm tired of going back and dragging out quotes from earlier notes which you'll
deny anyway.  If you can't track what's going on that's your problem.
    
.174>    Wow.  You seem to be saying that the characterization of rape as a 
.174>    violent crime is a matter of labeling all men (including you) as
.174>    rapists.
    
Not only is that not what I said but you know damned well that's not what I
said.  I'm convinced that if I said today was Thursday you'd argue about it.
    
Thus,
    
.174>    So, if we deny that rape victims (in general) suffer violence at the hands
.174>    of rapists, it would be less insulting to all men (including you)??
    
is directly contradicted by this:
    
>    The point in my mind has never been whether rape is a violent crime or
>    not.  In the general sense it is, and I'm not convinced that there can
>    be rape without violence.
    
What this says, clearly and unambiguously, is that rape in general is violent. 
It's even simple enough for you to understand, but you lack the honesty to
admit it.  Either that or you have the attention span of a toddler.
 
My argument follows this way:
    
>    The point always was that many of us object to its being exclusively
>    defined as such, as opposed to the general meaning of sexual act(s)
>    without consent.
    
After all, as I pointed out:
    
>    In the first place it ignores the sexual content that differentiates
>    rape from other crimes of violence.  One might ask why then we need a
>    crime of rape at all, since a charge of assault causing grievous bodily
>    harm or similar would then be equally appropriate.
    
>    In the second place the definition of violence meaning an abuse of male
>    power is too closely tied to radical feminist theories which deride men
>    generally, and I for one object strenuously to being labelled a rapist,
>    when I have never raped anyone, for no other reason than the accident
>    of my sex.  If you don't believe that that is what these theories say
>    then read Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon et al for yourself.
    
Then you say:
    
>    Oh, by all means, let's deny the violence in rape (if it would keep
>    from hurting your poor little feelings.)  Geeeeeeesh.
    
The only one denying anything is you, but that's typical.
    
.175>    It looks to me that .173 is a slight gesture of
.175>    accomodation/rapprochement.

I thought of it more as a succinct statement of my position.  I fail utterly to
see any need for me to accomodate someone as deeply dishonest as Suzanne.

    RE: .176  Simpson
    
    .174> Well, I guess I missed where "feminists" defined violence as an abuse 
    .174> of male power.  Please provide a quote and/or pointer.  Thanks.
    
    > I'm tired of going back and dragging out quotes from earlier notes 
    > which you'll deny anyway. 
    
    If this means you're accusing ME of defining violence this way, then
    I know for sure that this is a boldfaced lie.  I never said this at all.
    I've only defined violence once in this topic (and I used a requote of
    a dictionary definition.)
    
    > If you can't track what's going on that's your problem.
 
    If you think this is a good ploy to cover lies, you're mistaken.
    
    > What this says, clearly and unambiguously, is that rape in general is 
    > violent. 
    
    I'm glad you finally agree with me, however...  You seemed to backtrack
    somewhat later in your note (IMO.)
    
    > The point always was that many of us object to its being exclusively
    > defined as such, as opposed to the general meaning of sexual act(s)
    > without consent.
    
    This point is moot because NO ONE has been defining rape exclusively as
    violent (as if rape and violence are equivalent.)
    
    >  In the second place the definition of violence meaning an abuse of male
    > power is too closely tied to radical feminist theories which deride men
    > generally, and I for one object strenuously to being labelled a rapist,
    
    Here's where you backtracked somewhat.  You seem to want to deny the
    violence in rape because it would (in some way) amount to having all
    men (including yourself) labeled as rapists.  Your point is absurd!!!
    
    > I fail utterly to see any need for me to accomodate someone as deeply 
    > dishonest as Suzanne.
    
    Lies don't help your argument, Simpson.  Try another tactic.

    re .177
    <This point is moot because NO ONE has been defining rape exclusively as
    <violent (as if rape and violence are equivalent.)
    c.f. ...
    
================================================================================
Note 812.40                Men Being Raped... Discuss                  40 of 136
GLDOA::MCBRIDE                                        8 lines  31-JUL-1992 15:44
                              -< Rape = Violence >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re: 31, 36
    
    Understand that rape is not sexual, it's violence in it's worst form. 
    When one man rapes another in prision, I don't believe that he is "gay"
    (unless he was before) just because he has sex with another man, what
    he is is violent-probably goes right along with the reason he is in
    there in the first place.

    re .176
    
>    This point is moot because NO ONE has been defining rape exclusively as
>    violent (as if rape and violence are equivalent.)
    
    This is a lie.  
    
>    Here's where you backtracked somewhat.  You seem to want to deny the
>    violence in rape because it would (in some way) amount to having all
>    men (including yourself) labeled as rapists.  Your point is absurd!!!
    
    This is another lie.  A barefaced, unashamed, Suzanne Conlon classic
    lie.  I never denied the violence in rape.  Why do you tell so many
    lies?  Are you incapable of stopping yourself?
    
    I repeat:
    
    It is not violence which defines rape.  Rape is sexual act(s) without
    consent.
    
    It follows (obvious to anyone but you) that it is entirely consistent
    for me to acknowledge that rape and violence are generally connected
    while refuting definitions of rape by radical feminists and mindlessly
    repeated by their dupes which deny or avoid the crucial sexual aspect
    and seek to castigate all men.
    
    What I said (for the third time) was:
    
>    In the first place it ignores the sexual content that differentiates
>    rape from other crimes of violence.  One might ask why then we need a
>    crime of rape at all, since a charge of assault causing grievous bodily
>    harm or similar would then be equally appropriate.
    
>    In the second place the definition of violence meaning an abuse of male
>    power is too closely tied to radical feminist theories which deride men
>    generally, and I for one object strenuously to being labelled a rapist,
>    when I have never raped anyone, for no other reason than the accident
>    of my sex.  If you don't believe that that is what these theories say
>    then read Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon et al for yourself.

    RE:  .179  Simpson
    
    >> This point is moot because NO ONE has been defining rape exclusively as
    >> violent (as if rape and violence are equivalent.)
    
    > This is a lie.  
    
    Nonsense.  If rape and violence were described as equivalent here, then
    people would be calling ALL violent crimes rape.  They quite obviously
    do not.
    
    >> Here's where you backtracked somewhat.  You seem to want to deny the
    >> violence in rape because it would (in some way) amount to having all
    >> men (including yourself) labeled as rapists.  Your point is absurd!!!
    
    > This is another lie.  A barefaced, unashamed, Suzanne Conlon classic
    > lie.  I never denied the violence in rape.  Why do you tell so many
    > lies?  Are you incapable of stopping yourself?
    
    Wow.  After I point out a lie you told, you take your "copy cat"
    behavior to pretty severe extremes.  (Did you feel "outdone" or what?) :>
    
    Look, you may not be "denying" that rape is a violent crime, but you
    keep arguing about it (even after you agree with my point,) so it
    sounds somewhat like a denial to me.  If it's not, then fine.  You
    do agree with me.  I accept it.
    
    > It follows (obvious to anyone but you) that it is entirely consistent
    > for me to acknowledge that rape and violence are generally connected
    > while refuting definitions of rape by radical feminists and mindlessly
    > repeated by their dupes which deny or avoid the crucial sexual aspect
    > and seek to castigate all men.
    
    "...and seek to castigate ALL MEN[???]"  Gee, why didn't you add, "...and
    seek to destroy life in the universe as we know it" (while you were at it.)
    It would have been just as silly.
    
    Acknowledging the violence in rape is not a plot to destroy or insult
    all men, ok?  (Do you comprehend this?????)
    
    I'm sorry if you're so paranoid about feminism that you feel the need
    to keep arguing even though you AGREE with the point I've made all
    along (about rape in general being a violent crime.)

    Simpson, let's cool this discussion.
    
    We both agree that rape in general is a violent crime, so there's
    no point in continuing arguing (to the point of pistols being
    drawn.)
    
    Let's just drop it.
    

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 816.181  Is sexual abuse/rape always 'violent' and other defini  181 of 181
UTROP1::SIMPSON_D "$SH QUO: You have 0 miracles lef" 44 lines  20-AUG-1992 10:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .180
    
>    Nonsense.  If rape and violence were described as equivalent here, then
>    people would be calling ALL violent crimes rape.  They quite obviously
>    do not.
    
    Precisely my point all along.  People generally do not refer to all
    violent crimes rape (or, as I pointed out earlier, rape might just as
    well be assault causing grievous bodily harm or similar).  
    
    But the radical feminists do.  They say (do I really have to drag out
    the quotes *again*?) that all men are rapists, whether explicitly or
    implicitly, and that the penis is nothing more than another weapon. 
    The absurdity of this is striking, but it is what they say.
    
>    Wow.  After I point out a lie you told, you take your "copy cat"
>    behavior to pretty severe extremes.  (Did you feel "outdone" or what?) :>
    
    Copycat?  All you did was throw my name in parenthesis as an obvious
    aftethought while having a go a Mike Smith.  I've been meticulously
    documenting your lies, and they are many.
    
>    Look, you may not be "denying" that rape is a violent crime, but you
>    keep arguing about it (even after you agree with my point,) so it
    
    I'm not arguing about it all.
    
    <deleted because one of the moderators doesn't know the difference
    between a comment and a question.>
    
    Do I have to repeat what I said for the fourth time?  Is the
    argument simply too sophisticated for you?
    
>    "...and seek to castigate ALL MEN[???]"  Gee, why didn't you add, "...and
>    seek to destroy life in the universe as we know it" (while you were at it.)
>    It would have been just as silly.
    
    I've never seen the radical feminists say this.  Perhaps you have.  I
    said those who define rape by its violence are doing so as part of
    radical feminist theories which seek to degrade all men.  I agree that
    is silly.  But it is what they say, and us white male non-rapists have
    every right to object, not only to them, but to their dupes who
    mindlessly follow in their footsteps.
    
>    Acknowledging the violence in rape is not a plot to destroy or insult
>    all men, ok?  (Do you comprehend this?????)
    
    I never said it was.  Only you said this.  Do you comprehend this?

    RE: .181  Simpson
    
    > Precisely my point all along.  People generally do not refer to all
    > violent crimes rape...
    > But the radical feminists do.
    
    Absolute nonsense!
    
    > They say (do I really have to drag out the quotes *again*?) that all 
    > men are rapists, whether explicitly or implicitly,...
    
    Simpson, it's your paranoia speaking again.  I realize that you do
    believe this, though.  I doubt I can do anything to help you with
    this problem, but I do sympathize.
    
    > ...and that the penis is nothing more than another weapon. 
    > The absurdity of this is striking, but it is what they say.
    
    "Nothing more" (at all) than a weapon????  First off, no one here
    has said this (explicitly or implicitly,) so it's rather pointless
    to argue about it.  As I said a bit ago, acknowledging the violence
    in rape is not a plot to destroy or insult all men, so relax.  OK?
    
    > I've been meticulously documenting your lies, and they are many.
    
    Nonsense.  You're just upset (you probably dislike finding yourself
    agreeing with me.)  :>
    
    >> Look, you may not be "denying" that rape is a violent crime, but you
    >> keep arguing about it (even after you agree with my point,) so it
    
    > I'm not arguing about it all.  
    
    Arguing????  YOU?????  Of course, you're not arguing.  You're just
    thrashing about (hurling insult after insult at me) because you like
    me so much.
    
    >    [Comments deleted.]
    > Do I have to repeat what I said for the fourth time?  Is the
    > argument simply too sophisticated for you?
    
    Ho hum.
    
    Look - I've already acknowledged that you agree with my point.  I'll
    acknowledge it again - you agree with me that rape in general is a
    violent crime.  (Now, pull yourself together, Simpson!!)
    
    > I've never seen the radical feminists say this.  Perhaps you have.  I
    > said those who define rape by its violence are doing so as part of
    > radical feminist theories which seek to degrade all men.  
    
    If you've never seen radical feminists say this, then why do you
    assume that this is "radical feminist theory"?  It's only your paranoia!!
    
    > I agree that is silly.  But it is what they say,...
    
    You haven't SEEN NOR HEARD "them" say this, though.  You're just paranoid.
    
    > ... and us white male non-rapists have every right to object, not only 
    > to them, but to their dupes who mindlessly follow in their footsteps.
    
    You have "every right to object" to things YOU HAVE NOT SEEN NOR HEARD
    "THEM" SAY, though, so you're really objecting to the products of your
    own paranoia.
    
    >> Acknowledging the violence in rape is not a plot to destroy or insult
    >> all men, ok?  (Do you comprehend this?????)
    
    > I never said it was.  Only you said this.  Do you comprehend this?
    
    The scenerio you've painted in this topic sounds like a plot to degrade
    all men.  Shall we turn to defining "plot" now?
    
    Your argument is hilarious.

    re .184
    
>    > They say (do I really have to drag out the quotes *again*?) that all 
>    > men are rapists, whether explicitly or implicitly,...
    
>    Simpson, it's your paranoia speaking again.  I realize that you do
>    believe this, though.  I doubt I can do anything to help you with
>    this problem, but I do sympathize.
    
    This is not paranoia.  This is fact.  For example:
    
    Brownmiller, 'Against Our Will':
    
"A world without rapists would be a world in which women moved freely without 
fear of men.  That _some_ men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all 
women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge 
that the biological tool must be held in awe for it may turn to a weapon with 
sudden swiftness born of harmful intent.  Myrmidons to the cause of male 
dominance, police-blotter rapists have performed their duty well, so well in 
fact that the true meaning of their act has largely gone unnoticed.  Rather 
than society's aberrants or "spoilers of purity", men who commit rape have 
served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, guerillas in the longest 
sustained battle the world has known."
    
"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear 
must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along 
with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe.  From prehistoric times to 
the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function.  It is nothing 
more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which _all_ men keep 
_all_ women in a state of fear."
    
>    to argue about it.  As I said a bit ago, acknowledging the violence
>    in rape is not a plot to destroy or insult all men, so relax.  OK?
    
    And, as I have said several times in a row, acknowledgeing the violence
    in rape is not and has never been the point (if you start with 816.173
    and work your way forward you'll see that I say this several times). 
    The point is defining rape as violence in accord with radical feminist
    theory, an example of which I have provided.
    
.180>>    Look, you may not be "denying" that rape is a violent crime, but you
.180>>    keep arguing about it (even after you agree with my point,) so it
    
.180>    I'm not arguing about it all.  
    
.184>    Arguing????  YOU?????  Of course, you're not arguing.  You're just
.184>    thrashing about (hurling insult after insult at me) because you like
.184>    me so much.
    
    You really do have problems with the simplest of English language
    constructions.  I did not say I wasn't arguing (see the quote above). 
    I said I wasn't arguing about the point in question.  The difference in
    meaning is significant.
    
    Oh, and as for liking you - as you say, in your dreams.
    
>    > I've never seen the radical feminists say this.  Perhaps you have.  I
>    > said those who define rape by its violence are doing so as part of
>    > radical feminist theories which seek to degrade all men.  
    
>    If you've never seen radical feminists say this, then why do you
>    assume that this is "radical feminist theory"?  It's only your paranoia!!
    
    Too dishonest to put in the full quotes, eh?  How about I put it all
    in, so that the context won't be lost as you intend:
    
>    "...and seek to castigate ALL MEN[???]"  Gee, why didn't you add, "...and
>    seek to destroy life in the universe as we know it" (while you were at it.)
>    It would have been just as silly.
    
>    > I've never seen the radical feminists say this.  Perhaps you have.  I
>    > said those who define rape by its violence are doing so as part of
>    > radical feminist theories which seek to degrade all men.  
    
>    If you've never seen radical feminists say this, then why do you
>    assume that this is "radical feminist theory"?  It's only your paranoia!!
    
    The fact that I have yet to see even the most radical of feminists say
    (and I quote your fictious invention):
    
    "...and seek to destroy life in the universe as we know it"
    
    is why I never even considered it.  You have confused fiction with
    reality yet again.
    
    But, back to more of your dishonesty:
    
>    > I agree that is silly.  But it is what they say,...
    
>    You haven't SEEN NOR HEARD "them" say this, though.  You're just paranoid.
    
>    > ... and us white male non-rapists have every right to object, not only 
>    > to them, but to their dupes who mindlessly follow in their footsteps.
    
>    You have "every right to object" to things YOU HAVE NOT SEEN NOR HEARD
>    "THEM" SAY, though, so you're really objecting to the products of your
>    own paranoia.
    
    Here's the full quote:
    
.181>>    "...and seek to castigate ALL MEN[???]"  Gee, why didn't you add, "...and
.181>>    seek to destroy life in the universe as we know it" (while you were at it.)
.181>>    It would have been just as silly.
    
.181>    I've never seen the radical feminists say this.  Perhaps you have.  I
.181>    said those who define rape by its violence are doing so as part of
.181>    radical feminist theories which seek to degrade all men.  I agree that
.181>    is silly.  But it is what they say, and us white male non-rapists have
.181>    every right to object, not only to them, but to their dupes who
.181>    mindlessly follow in their footsteps.
    
    Pistols at dawn?

    David, still giving those free singing lessons, I see ...

    Simpson won!

    RE: .186  Simpson
    
    Per the quote you provided, Brownmiller states:
    
    	" ...That _some_ men rape..."  "...men who commit rape..."
    
    She doesn't say, "All men are rapists."  It's your paranoia again.
    
    > The point is defining rape as violence in accord with radical feminist
    > theory, an example of which I have provided.
    
    I'm not sure why so-called "radical feminist theory" frightens you so
    much, but it has very little (or nothing) to do with what's being
    discussed, as far as I'm concerned.
    
    .184> Arguing????  YOU?????  Of course, you're not arguing.  You're just
    .184> thrashing about (hurling insult after insult at me) because you like
    .184> me so much.
    
    > You really do have problems with the simplest of English language
    > constructions.  I did not say I wasn't arguing (see the quote above). 
    > I said I wasn't arguing about the point in question. 
    
    You really do seem as desperate as ever to argue with me (and to launch
    little insults at me) even though you agree with my basic point.
    
    Of course, I was referring to the fact that you're still ARGUING with 
    me about all this (although you've admitted that you AGREE with my main
    point in this discussion.)  It seems pretty pointless, but I guess
    it's important to you.
    
    >> If you've never seen radical feminists say this, then why do you
    >> assume that this is "radical feminist theory"?  It's only your paranoia!!
    
    > Too dishonest to put in the full quotes, eh?  How about I put it all
    > in, so that the context won't be lost as you intend:
    
    Well, I do agree that I misunderstood you when you stated you'd never
    seen feminists "say this."  I thought you were referring to your own
    silly claims about what feminists have said (not my joke about your
    claims.)  Oh well.
    
    You still haven't provided quotes to support these claims.
    
    > Pistols at dawn?
    
    Completely unnecessary.  You agree with my main point in this
    discussion, so I'm happy.

    RE: .189
    
    > Simpson won!
    
    In his (and your) dreams, pal.  :>
    

    re .190
    
    "It [=rape] is nothing  more or less than a conscious process of
    intimidation by which _all_ men keep  _all_ women in a state of fear."

    and the conference lost
    

    re .193
    
    So, Herb, should I have conceded the point and let Suzanne coninue her
    merry way?

    re .187
    
    Sure, Mike.  I forgot the last bit of the quote so I just kept right on
    going.  Didn't it say something about irritating pigs?

    re .179
    <It follows (obvious to anyone but you) that it is entirely consistent
    <for me to acknowledge that rape and violence are generally connected
    <while refuting definitions of rape by radical feminists and mindlessly
    <repeated by their dupes which deny or avoid the crucial sexual aspect
    <and seek to castigate all men.

    It may follow, but I think it's damned disingenuous in this discussion.
    (and I don't think the disingenuousness is justified by somebody else's
    disingenuousness. Any more that I think it would be appropriate to
    break wind in church and justify it because somebody else did.)

    There are very few statements of the form rape = violence in any of
    these discussions.
    Furthermore, I haven't seen any statements that I reacted to as
    "politically motivated radical feminists' statements". I am excluding
    Suzanne Conlon from this because I don't consider her contributions on
    this -or almost anything else- to be useful because pure argumentation
    is such an intrisic part of her noting persona.

    I _have_ seen some statements by people that I think reflect their
    horror of rape. I sympathize with such people and understand how much
    pain they may be in. Why can't you be a little more sympathetic? Why
    can't you show some sensitivity to those people? Why couldn't you take
    that into consideration when this discussion started two weeks ago?

    Why weren't you able almost 2 weeks ago to make the statement quoted
    at the beginning, above? If you had, I think that recognition that you
    were engaged in a political debate, could have -I think would have-
    changed the tone of this discussion very substantially. I don't know of
    _anybody_ who was engaged in a radical feminist debate in these
    discussions with the possible exception of Suzanne Conlon, whose
    contributions ...

    There really isn't a whole bunch of practical substance between the
    statements
    	rape is generally violent 
    	and rape is always violent
    (although the difference is a veritable mother lode for arguers)

    Particularly if one extends the concept of violence to include
    "emotional violence" (which is a perfectly clear metaphor)
    or if one replaces the statement "rape is always violent" by 
    "rape is (almost invariably) psychologically traumatic"

    To spend two weeks bickering over the difference between 
    	rape is generally violent  (or rape is psychologically traumatic)
    		and 
    	rape is violent
    is worse than disingenuous, it's duplicitous, it's downright hurtful.
    (in spit of the obvious difference between generally and always). 

    I believe ...
    that rape (virtually) always is 	psychologically traumatic
    					emotional violence.
    It seems clear that you do as well.

    The debating style of searching out differences and attacking weak
    'positions' or weakly stated ideas, accomplishes very, very little in
    advancement of ideas. It does accomplish a lot in terms of the
    'decibel' level of the conference, in terms of a little strutting.
    It makes me very sad that so many people seem eager to saboutage important
    discussions in the interest of advancing their agendas. Or people
    whose principal interest seems not to be to communicate but rather
    seems to be to prove others wrong and to show off how clever their
    ability to manipulate discussions is. And again the irony is that
    people are seldom 'proved' wrong in these discussions. And even more
    rarely admit it. (c.f. 816.178)

    <should I have conceded ...>
    I wish you had felt able to!

    re .195
    
    Herb, you've confused me and my arguments with others.  I explicitly
    reserved judgement on the issue of whether rape can be non-violent, and
    .173 was my first explicit statement on the subject.  I did, however,
    take issue with the way the word violent was being defined and
    redefined.  I thus reject the charge of disingenuousness.  I have said
    what I thought all along.

    <should I have conceded ...>
    I dunno, is it comparable to the attempts of teaching pigs to fly?
    
    I think verbal ping pong matches demean both players

    RE: .192  Simpson
    
    > "It [=rape] is nothing  more or less than a conscious process of
    > intimidation by which _all_ men keep  _all_ women in a state of fear."
    
    She already stated (explicitly!!!) that only some men rape, so it is
    absurd to conclude the contrary in this statement.  
    
    How many times did you expect her to repeat it (that only SOME men commit 
    rape)???  I caught it the first time I read it.

    RE: .193  Herb
    
    >  -< re simpson won >-
    > and the conference lost
    
    Herb, I don't regard myself as a victim of Simpson's lashings.  Who
    cares what he says about me, after all?
    
    He's made a lot of unsupported claims (of so-called radical feminist
    theory) with most of it based on his own paranoia.
    
    It's been worthwhile to me to point this out to him.

    RE: .188 Simpson
    
    > Sure, Mike.  I forgot the last bit of the quote so I just kept right on
    > going.  Didn't it say something about irritating pigs?
    
    Be nice to Mike, now.  Insults aren't necessary.  Try a different
    tactic.
    

.174>    Well, I guess I missed where "feminists" defined violence as an abuse 
.174>    of male power.  Please provide a quote and/or pointer.  Thanks.

    Suzanne, you're right - this is a total fabrication.  I don't know
    how you can stand this.  Amazing.

    Herb, ignore me if you will, but at least we'll always have Paris.  8^)

    Di
    

    RE: .195  Herb
    
    > Furthermore, I haven't seen any statements that I reacted to as
    > "politically motivated radical feminists' statements". I am excluding
    > Suzanne Conlon from this because I don't consider her contributions on
    > this -or almost anything else- to be useful because pure argumentation
    > is such an intrisic part of her noting persona.
    
    Your hysterical reactions to mere discussion are rather useless, as far
    as I'm concerned.
    

    RE: .203
    
    .173> As usual the feminists jumped in early on and tried
    .173> to define it as a crime of violence, where violence is an abuse 
    .173> of male power,...
    
    > Suzanne, you're right - this is a total fabrication.  I don't know
    > how you can stand this.  Amazing.
    
    Go easy on him.  His assumptions got the better of him, that's all.
    It's ok.

    <Your hysterical reactions to mere discussion are rather useless, as far
    <as I'm concerned.

    I am proud of my anger. I know and regret that I sometimes ventilate it
    in unproductive ways. I believe I am getting better. I regret its
    counter-productive manifestations.
    Do you know how painful it is to watch your ranting and ravings?
    Sometimes its
    Zarlenga and you sometimes its
    Haddock and  you sometimes its
    Simpson and you sometimes ...
    Linville and you sometimes ....
    				   .

    				    .
    Do you understand that it turns off an awful lot of people?
    Do you understand that it is very unpleasant?

    RE: .207  Herb
    
    > I am proud of my anger. I know and regret that I sometimes ventilate it
    > in unproductive ways. I believe I am getting better. I regret its
    > counter-productive manifestations.
    
    It's appropriate for you to characterize yourself in whatever manner
    you see fit.
    
    You're not qualified to perform such analyses on others, though,
    including me.
    
    > Do you know how painful it is to watch your ranting and ravings?
    
    Your constant pain is evident in almost everything you write, including
    your snipes at me.  I'm sorry for your pain, but I don't regard myself
    as responsible for it.
    
    > Do you understand that it turns off an awful lot of people?
    
    If I were deathly afraid of others' opinions about me, I'd never have
    started participating in notes in the first place.  (I'm not.)
    
    > Do you understand that it is very unpleasant?
    
    I stand up for my ideas.  Big deal.
    
    Now, kindly stop derailing the discussion with these useless personal
    assessments of others.  You are not invited, nor are you welcome, to
    delve into further speculations about me.
    
    Let's get back to the discussion at hand.

    <You're not qualified to perform such analyses on others, though,
    <including me.
    
    Qualified or not, I hope you are aware that I am right.
    
    Now, do you CARE whether I am right? 
    I hope that too, but I doubt it.
    

    RE: .209  Herb
    
    >> You're not qualified to perform such analyses on others, though,
    >> including me.
    
    > Qualified or not, I hope you are aware that I am right.
    
    Your analyses are mere opinions, not facts.  Opinions are subjective
    (not "right" or "wrong.")
    
    > Now, do you CARE whether I am right? 
    > I hope that too, but I doubt it.
    
    Your opinions are not a great concern to me (except as a distraction 
    from the subject at hand.)
    
    I've asked you to stop discussing your assessment of me.  I'm asking
    again.
    
    Let's get back to the topic at hand.

    <Let's get back to the discussion at hand.
    In my opinion, there was no discussion at hand.
    In my opinion, there was simply two stubborn -indeed muleheaded- kids
    lobbing prickly barbs back and forth. 
    Each having long since lost any purpose other than to insult and
    'prove' wrong the other. 
    I was going to invite you to have the last word, but that isn't
    necessary is it?

    Congratulations, Mike.  You agree with Andrea Dworkin.  
    
    Rape is just sex.  Therefore, sex must include the concept of rape. 
    
    Ray

    My own take on this is uncomfortable.
    
    It's obviously true (sorry, Mike) that rape is, by common usage of the
    word "violent", a violent act.  It's clear that it's also (as Jody
    pointed out to general disregard) an act involving assertion of power. 
    Unfortunately, it's clear to me that it's also (as rapists usually
    claim and as rape victims' traumas so ofter have to deal with) an act
    involving sex. 
    
    Which dredges up all kinds of unpleasant questions about the extent to
    which "violence" AND "assertion of power" AND "sex" overlap.  Which
    is where writers like Brownmiller and Dworkin come in, trying to figure
    out answers to those unpleasant questions.
    
    I don't have any, myself.  But I sure don't see you guys trying.
    
    Ray

    RE: .211  Herb
    
    > ...stubborn -indeed muleheaded- kids lobbing prickly barbs back and 
    > forth. 
    
    You used the word "muleheaded" to insult another noter long before
    I joined the discussion.  I guess you were just determined to whine
    and carry on this way, no matter who got involved.
    
    Oh well.

    re:.212
    
    Agree with her? Heck, Ray, I could be her ghost writer.
    
    Watch : "yakyakyak heterosexual sex is rape yakyakyak men are scum
    yakyakyak men are rapists yakyakyak men are violent rapists yakyakyak
    become woman-centered and forget about men yakyakyak fish don't need
    bicycles yakyakyak."
    
    See?  Now just use a random word generator to throw filler in where
    there are yakyakyaks, and you've got a best seller.  Maybe even title
    it "Smart Women, Slimy Men," or maybe "Every Man is a Rapist."  Yeah,
    that last one's kinda catchy ...

.207>    Sometimes its
.207>    Zarlenga and you sometimes its
.207>    Haddock and  you sometimes its
.207>    Simpson and you sometimes ...
.207>    Linville and you sometimes ....
    
    Let's see, now ... what could be the common denominator?  Hmmm ...

    Mike, you may agree with her but you got a ways to go before you can
    manage a good parody.  (Not that I think you should; I prefer the
    non-academic style, myself.)
    
    Ray

    RE: .216  Mike Z.

    .207>    Sometimes its
    .207>    Zarlenga and you sometimes its
    .207>    Haddock and  you sometimes its
    .207>    Simpson and you sometimes ...
    .207>    Linville and you sometimes ....
    
    > Let's see, now ... what could be the common denominator?  Hmmm ...

    Hey, it's no secret that I hold a minority opinion in this forum.
    I don't expect special treatment for it, though.  I just participate
    as long as I feel like participating (without knocking the entire
    conference for having a different prevalent opinion than mine.)

    No big deal.

    re:.217
    
    You were impressed, eh?
    
    If you think that's good, you oughtta see my Dice Man imitation.  ;')

>    If you think that's good, you oughtta see my Dice Man imitation.  ;')
    
    And here we thought that's what you were doing all along.

    Oooh, gettin' a little catty in here, eh Victor?
    
    And from a moderator, no less!
    
    But hey, no prob, Vick, ol'buddy ... I'll do Dice at the next party,
    just ask me.  Not sure if it's your cup of tea, but you'll never know
    until you try it, right?
    
    Think the nursery rhymes might be a bit too VIOLENT for ya.  ;')

    WOW!  .221 replies and I think I have finally figured out what
    Mr. Simpson's original point of dispute was that led to this
    heated debate.
    
    Mr. Simpson-
    
    it the objection you hold to the statement "rape is an act of
    violence"?  I'm reading this as your stating that rape is a
    sexual act performed without consent that may have elements of
    violence, but it's the lack of consent that defines the crime,
    not the use of violence.
    
    If this is what you are saying, I agree with you, FWIW.
    
    Suzanne and Herb-
    
    I'm sorry you are so uncomfortable Herb, and I sometimes agree that
    the discourse between the parties you listed does seem to be stubborn,
    but unfortunately, when two people are discussing a subject from 
    opposite extremes, it's hard to agree to disagree when your beleifs
    are so strong that you just cannot accept and let go of the other's
    disagreement.  I wouldn't expect to see it stop anytime soon, nor do
    I think we should advocate it.  When you get past the "insults", 
    generally both parties do make good points, to be taken or left based
    on your own understandings.
    
    Christine

    re .222
    
    Christine, I think you may indeed understand my point.  It is the lack
    of consent to sexual act(s) which defines rape, and the violence is
    incidental in the sense that it is a means and not the end.  (Radical
    feminist theories have it that violence, as part of some grand
    conspiracy to oppress women, is the end and the sexual act(s) the
    means).
    
    In the same sense, it is the intentional killing of another person
    which defines murder, even while murder is often or even usually
    violent.
    
    In the same way that most people are horrified at the intentional
    killing of another, even when the murder is not (particularly) violent,
    so most people are horrified by sexual act(s) being forced on another,
    even when the rape is not (particularly) violent.

    <Christine, I think you may indeed understand my point.  It is the lack
    <of consent to sexual act(s) which defines rape, and the violence is
    <incidental in the sense that it is a means and not the end.  (Radical
    <feminist theories have it that violence, as part of some grand
    <conspiracy to oppress women, is the end and the sexual act(s) the
    <means).
    I trust you would agree that rapes involve all ratios of sex/violence
    from 0 to infinity, including cases where each is purely the means and
    the other is purely the end?
    

    Re: .223
    
    I think that whether deliberately or for lack of English language
    skills, Messrs Simpson, Valenza, et al., you're missing the point.  I'm
    not sure Ms Conlon agrees precisely with my take on this, but let me
    see if I can put it more clearly.  In .223, Mr Simpson states:
    
    > of consent to sexual act(s) which defines rape, and the violence is
    > incidental in the sense that it is a means and not the end.
    
    This remark expose the fundamental problem in communication.  Violence
    is not, in my argument, the means of perpetrating a sexual act on an
    unwilling person.  In some - BUT NOT ALL - instances of rape, physical
    violence may be employed, but I contend that the real violence is the
    RESULT of the rape.  The victim cannot escape the emotional destruction
    wrought by being raped, and experience teaches us that most victims
    can't even repair it.
    
    -dick

    <I'm sorry you are so uncomfortable Herb

    I am not uncomfortable, I am bloody sick and tired of childish ping
    pong matches. I don't believe we should stand around and let them
    continue. If I felt that I were the only one who feels this way, I
    would not have entered my comments. I wish more people would express
    their ire. (or comment on my reactions to 816 either publicly or
    through mail)
    
    I cannot think of a better way to describe my reaction to _your_
    comment quoted above other than to characterize it as 'make-nice'. 
    Your 'commiseration' is ill received.

    To forestall the suggestion to 'next-unseen'... 
    That action would assume that the manner in which this 'discussion' has
    been 'waged' has not had a deleterious impact on this entire
    conference. I think it has.

    I think the most recent entries are hopeful.
    I also think there was one hellavafine suggestion implied in the entry
    816.213 ...

    <...
    <Which dredges up all kinds of unpleasant questions about the extent to
    <which "violence" AND "assertion of power" AND "sex" overlap.  Which
    <is where writers like Brownmiller and Dworkin come in, trying to figure
    <out answers to those unpleasant questions.
    <I don't have any, myself.  But I sure don't see you guys trying.
    
    

    <... Violence is not, in my argument, the means of perpetrating a
    <sexual act on an unwilling person.  
    I think you are misspeaking here as the following statement suggests
    
    <In some - BUT NOT ALL - instances of rape, physical violence may be
    <employed 
    Which I think does make violence the means but not the instrument (as
    i'm sure yule agree)
    
    If one is allowed to think of violence as causing emotional
    devastation (or psychological trauma) then I definitely agree with ...
    <the real violence is the RESULT of the rape.  The victim cannot escape
    <the emotional destruction wrought by being raped, and experience
    p.s.
    "teaches us that most victims can't even repair it"
    Did you mean can't "ever" repair it?
    pps was the reference to Valenza intended to be Zarlenga?

    RE: .223  Simpson
    
    > It is the lack of consent to sexual act(s) which defines rape, and 
    > the violence is incidental in the sense that it is a means and not 
    > the end.  
    
    I disagree.  If it were true that rape is a matter of, "Gee, I'd really
    like to have sex, but since I can't find anyone who's willing to have
    sex with me, I guess I'll just rape someone to get it from an unwilling
    party" - I would agree with you.
    
    Rapists often have wives and/or girlfriends (willing sexual partners)
    and go ELSEWHERE to find women to rape.  Sometimes the rape victims
    are women in their 90's (or pre-school children nabbed off the street.)
    
    Also, many porn movies feature rape scenes (where the attraction is NOT 
    just the sex - or else the sex would be shown in a "willing partner" 
    scenerio.)  In porn films, rape has an attraction ALL ITS OWN (which 
    goes well beyond sex between two consenting partners.)  It has violence 
    and/or control elements that are "ends" in themselves (not just the means 
    to have sex.)
    
    > (Radical feminist theories have it that violence, as part of some grand
    > conspiracy to oppress women, is the end and the sexual act(s) the
    > means).
    
    Well, I guess we could trade "conspiracy theories" here, because your
    notes about so-called "radical feminists" sound like you believe they
    are engaged in a conspiracy to degrade men.
    
    > In the same sense, it is the intentional killing of another person
    > which defines murder, even while murder is often or even usually
    > violent.
    
    Aside from the nit that we have laws ungainst the UN-intentional
    homicide of another person as well (such as driving recklessly in
    a way that causes the deaths of others, even though these deaths
    were not the intent of the person being prosecuted for the crime)...
    
    Why do people engage in the intentional killing of another person?
    Do you really think it has nothing whatever to do with the idea of
    committing violence and/or having power over that individual?  
    Murder (even more than rape) sounds to me like a crime of power - 
    a murderer has the power to end a person's entire life on this
    planet (permanently.)  The violence in murder is not incidental, IMO.

    Herb,
    
    oops-mixed you up with Ray-I thought you used uncomfortable.
    Ok, you are angry.  That's fine.  I wasn't trying to make
    nice, either, it really isn't my style.  In a warped way,
    I guess I was trying to empathize with you without agreeing-
    to bad it was ill-received.  So goes life.  I actually find 
    the evolution of this note amusing (not the subject matter,
    but the escalation)-to each his own reaction.

    The evolution of notes like this -with some of the same participants-
    stopped being amusing to me about three years ago.

    I find such escalation more amusing in less painful topics. 
    
    Although I admit that one man's painful topic is another man's "who
    cares?" (viz. the innumerable alimony notes).
    
    Inasmuch as I have a quarrel with Brownmiller (incidentally, the
    constant recycling of that quote is getting a little stale; perhaps you
    should try recycling some of the argument leading up to it), it's in
    the "conscious" nature of the oppression.  Here's why:
    
    Sex is, I think, _necessarily_ bound up with issues of control.  Its
    most delightful aspect, speaking subjectively, is the sense of _loss_
    of control even though, speaking objectively, very much getting what I
    want. 
    
    Rapists glory in their assertion of control but often coach their
    self-defense in the opposite terms:  "she _made_ me _lose_ control",
    "she was asking for it", "if you play with fire you get burnt", and so
    on.  Rape is the ugliest aspect of the unconscious overlap between
    sexual and control issues.  No, that doesn't help me understand why
    rape happens.  But, judging from words alone, the overlap is there.
    
    However, inasmuch as rape is overwhelmingly man-to-woman, and, through
    history, often explicitly used as assertion of superiority or as weapon
    or as punishment (even in Academy Award winning movies: see "One Flew
    Over the Cuckoo's Nest"), it's playing a part in society outside its
    purely sexual aspects.  Brownmiller concentrates on that non-sexual
    aspect.  As a result, I think, if anything, she lets us (both men and
    women) off too easily.
    
    Ray

    Re: .228
    
    Yes, "Valenza" should be "Zarlenga."  Thanks for pointing out my error
    of haste.
    
    But no, I was not misspeaking when I said "Violence is not, in my
    argument, the means of perpetrating a sexual act on an unwilling
    person."  I freely acknowledged that violence, in one of its many
    definitions, may be used in some cases of rape.  But the violence of
    which I speak, Herb, is the actual damage that is done to the victim. 
    I provided that specific meaning in one of my many attempts to help
    create a common ground for discussion of the word "violence" itself. 
    Vide my citation of the OED somewhere in this string.
    
    > Did you mean can't "ever" repair it?
    
    No, I did not.  I rarely fail to say say what I mean.  I refer you to
    the definition of (3)even in Webster's Ninth.
    
    -dick

>    often explicitly used as assertion of superiority or as weapon
>    or as punishment (even in Academy Award winning movies: see "One Flew
>    Over the Cuckoo's Nest"), it's playing a part in society outside its
>    purely sexual aspects. 
    
    Unless, like Dworkin and Zarlenga, you take the rapists at their word,
    give up the attempt to find "non-sexual aspects" to rape, and start
    from the simplifying assumption that these are aspects of sex itself. 
    
    I find this approach too disturbing to credit, but that may just be
    intellectual cowardice on my part.
    
    Ray

    I was trying to be courteous and polite.

    in re .233
    <The victim cannot escape the emotional destruction wrought by being
    <...
    I now see that "even" makes sense. At first reading, I missed it being
    something like [not only] can the victim not ESCAPE the
    emotional destruction, [but also] most can't even REPAIR it.

    p.s.
    <In some - BUT NOT ALL - instances of rape, physical violence may be
    <employed, but I contend that the real violence is the RESULT of the
    <rape.  
    I agree (but the physical violence isn't imaginary violence)

    <read what I wrote, not what you *think* I wrote>
    You wrote "Valenza". This was one of those <rare times> when you failed
    to "say say" (sic) what you intended to "say say" (titter).

    in re .235 and .236
    
    Yup, Herb.  Titter, titter, I did indeed space the name of a Mike. 
    Jeez, I'm just hoping Mike VALENZA doesn't read .233 and lay a Quaker
    Stare on me.  :-)
    
    Sorry for snapping at you.  A lot of people have been reading a lot of
    unintended meanings into a lot of communications in this string, and I
    jerked my knee in the wrong direction.
    
    -dick

    thnx

    re:.237
    
    Don't sweat it, dickie, Mike Valenza himself once started a note 
    about the similarities between our names and how to recognize the
    differences between our notes.