Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    [I am probably not the _ideal_ respondent to this one, but here
    goes:]
    
    re. not netting what you were casting for
    
      I have known women who hoped to attract women.  If men were attracted
    they didn't seem to mind, but tended to get miffed if the men persisted.
    [Much as I would should I be unable to turn away unwanted attention]
      I think the key here would be attention you didn't intend to attract
    more that it would be the sex of the respondent.  I have never
    intentionally dressed to _attract_ a woman; I _have_ been approached;
    I have been flattered.  _Rarely_ has a woman persisted in pursuing
    the sort of relationship I have no interest in pursuing.
    
    re. date rape
    
      I have never feared date rape.  When I was dating, I accepted
    the possibilty that it could happen and exercised reasonable care.
    Nothing in life is certain. I was fortunate.
      Conceivably, I could put myself at risk being in intimate
    surroundings with a woman who'd shown an overt sexual interest.
    It is difficult for me to imagine, as -- as previously stated --
    women haven't tended to relentless pursuit in my experience.
      
      I would bitterly resent _any_ person forcing sexual actions on
    me once I had indicated I had no desire for them.  I don't think
    this is an issue of sexual orientation either.
    
    -------
    
      I cannot speak for all women.  Certainly I cannot speak as a woman
    with physical yearnings for women.  I can only speak as _a_ woman.
    
      Ann
    
    
     

    my opinion is that women dress for women.. yes, there are some that
    dress for men (or the reaction from men) but mostly for women.
    
    
    when one is invited to an occassion (wedding, gala event, etc.)
    most women feel they must get a new outfit to fit in.. now,
    most husbands suggest that women look fine.. but the new
    outfit of fashion must be obtained..  women look at other
    womens clothing as a statement of the individual.
    
    i dress with what i have.. when invited to a gala event, i go 
    with what i have (usually.. my husband could debate this fact!!)
    some women dress for men.. i.e.; sexy dresses, silk seamed stockings,
    heels as high as the empire state building.. etc.. but in reality..
    women want to be the best dressed.. therefore they buy these outfits
    hoping that they will win the fashion prize of the evening...
    
    this is MY opinion.. please don't blast me on this..!!
    
    toni

I guess what I'm referring to in my "date rape" question, is a reaction
I had the last time I saw "Desert Hearts" with my SO. (I had seen the
movie a couple of times before that).

In "DH", there's the scene where the younger women (Patricia Charbonneau)
goes to the hotel room of the older women (Helen Shaver - I can't remember
the names of their characters).

Now, Helen is certainly turned on by Patricia, but, as yet, is not ready
to go any further. Patricia basically doesn't take "no" for an answer (she
really has the hots for Helen), and she undresses Helen, begins to kiss
her - the whole thing.

Now, Helen, in retrospect, only had to be led, had to have an assertive
lover, to convince her that it was what she - Helen - really wanted.

Doesn't sound too different from what some boys/men do (or try to do)
with their girlfriends. 

Could the scene that I described from "DH" be considered date rape?
    
  Alan

    Well, Alan, the scene is fiction.  I would have to know more
    about the film, and how autobiographical it is, before I could
    give any opinion at all.
    
    For example, if the writer and the director were men, I'd say
    the scene is male fantasy, and that it would be silly to refer
    to it in any terms which implied that it was in touch with
    reality.  If, however, both  the writer and the director were
    women, then I'd say "I'd have to see the scene." before giving
    an opinion.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I've run into some examples of why-you-shouldn't-trust-
    everything-you read recently, and my distrust of hearsay is
    showing.

    RE: .4
    
    Ann, I have this movie on tape, and if I remember tonight, I'll
    play the opening credits to determine the screenplay writer, 
    director, and author (if the movie was based on a book).
    
    I'm pretty sure I remember it was directed by a woman.
    
    Other references to this movie (not the scene I've brought up)
    have been made by various Noters in both V1 and V2 of -WN-.
    
      Alan 

    Like the respondent in .1, I don't know that I'm the best one
    to try to answer this, but here goes... 

.0>- Do some women dress "provocatively" to sexually entice other women,

    I have seen women dress to attract the attention, admiration,
    envy, etc. of other women, in a completely non-sexual way.  I
    have seen women who had *already* acknowledged their
    attraction for each other dress "provocatively" for each
    other.  In my (limited) experience, I have not seen a woman
    dress "provocatively" in the hopes of initially attracting
    another woman's sexual attentions.  If she did, I assume she
    would understand that she might attract the attention of men
    as well. 

.0>- Do women never attempt to seduce other women?

    Of course.  In my (again, limited) experience, such a lesbian
    courtship usually begins based on a standing friendship, much
    tentative hedging around the subject--one hates to indicate
    interest to a friend who might be completely disgusted--and a
    lot of talking about feelings...The courtship seems to have a
    lot more talking, and a lot less role presentation (such as
    dressing provocatively or whatever), perhaps because the
    "rules" for a lesbian courtship are not well-established for
    many women.  I have not personally observed a courtship
    between two open lesbians, but I'd guess that they'd have a
    lot less fear and uncertainty in initially expressing their
    feelings than women who felt unable to be so open.

.0>- Do women feel less hostile about the possibility of being "date-raped"
.0>  by another woman?

    This woman doesn't!  If I don't want someone violating my
    person, I don't care who or what they are or how they do it!

.0>- Have there been many reported cases of a woman being violently 
.0>  raped by another woman (not among female prison inmates)?

    I don't know about "many," but I remember seeing newspaper
    articles sometime during the last year about a woman in the
    Kansas City area who was convicted of raping the woman who
    lived next door.  So it *does* happen (in the supposedly
    hyper-conservative MidWest, too) and not just in prison.

    -- Linda

    It's been my limited experience that when someone makes a sexual
    advance that I don't care to respond to, a woman is much much much
    more likely to take no for an answer without any hard feelings
    than is a man. 
    
    --bonnie 

    re:.5 re:.4
    
    I don't know about the writer, but my handy-dandy reference
    book lists the director of DESERT HEARTS as Donna Deitch.
    
    Actually, in line with Ann's question, it would seem to me
    that the sex of the writer would be more important in this
    case than the sex of the director. I'd be more inclined to
    accept the validity of such a scene if, say, it was written
    by a woman and directed by a man, than the other way around.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Well, if memory serves me correctly DH is based "loosely" on
    a book by Jane Rule.  I believe she was also involved in the
    screenplay, but the movie is Quite different from the book.
    In the book, the scene you described, is subsequent to other
    'close encounters' and much discussion, as well as a halting
    willingness by the older woman.  The movie didn't take the
    time, or have the opportunity, or decide it was worth it to
    show all of the prelim stuff, so it did make it look much
    more 'pressured'.  Yes, in a situation like that it probably
    closely parallels date rape. ... though I don't recall the 
    older woman saying NO WAY, rather..."I don't think this is
    right/good/okay"  whatever...
    
    For what its worth...my 2 cents...
    I think there are women who dress/act to attract men,
    and others who do it to attract other women ,,,and others
    who did just to get ANY attention.  Unfortunately I think
    all three are sort of silly.  Dressing to please a specific
    person (husband/lover/SO) is fine, and a nice thing to do, and
    if, at the same time you attract attention, well, then just
    goes to show what good taste your husband/lover/SO has!!!!!
    But, dressing to attract general attention---as in the singles
    bar scene, just isn't for me, and doesn't make sense in this
    day and age of rape/violence/disease....
    
    As for women raping women, I suppose it happens (nothing 
    would suprise me anymore), but I can't imagine its
    very frequent, cuz as someone else said here, I find that
    women take NO for an answer, and don't persist --- even
    if I am relating this to things such as 'wanna go to
    the movies/party/bar/whereever," vs. 'wanna go to bed"
    
    just my opinion...
    
    d
    

    RE: Last few
    
    Well, I guess all we need now is the name of the person who 
    did the screenplay.
    
    I did run the opening credits for "Desert Hearts" last night:
    
     o  Produced and Directed by Donna Deitch
    
     o Based on the novel "Desert of the Heart" by Jane Rule
    
     o Screenplay by Natalie Cooper 
    
    P.S. Say, Jerry, is this movie critiqued in MOVIES? :-)
    
      Alan

re: Desert Hearts

Well, since everyone concerned has politically correct first names,
we can all rest assured that the film is not pandering to male lust.

M.

    Re ."Desert Hearts", yes, this movie is reviewed in MOVIES.  I remember
    reading about it and I think responding.  I read the book that the
    movie is based on and thought it was very good.  I think the author
    is a Lesbian so hopefully she knows what she's talking about.  I
    think I read it on the book flap or something.  In the movie, I
    don't think the love scene is really date rape.  The younger woman
    does take the lead, but the older woman is interested (just nervous),
    and she didn't regret it after.  To me, date rape is when a person
    is pressured into it when they aren't interested, and says to themselves
    afterwards, "Why did I let *that* happen!"

    As far as the questions in .0, I'm also not the best person to answer
    them but I will anyway.  
    
    I dress to please myself.  I like clothes and I buy (as far as I
    can *afford*) things that I find appealing.  This makes me happier
    than worrying about what somebody else will think.
    
    I've never been "approached" by another woman or had another woman
    try to seduce me, nor have I ever approached or tried to seduce
    another woman.  However, I'm sure it must go on.  Women who are
    sexually interested in other women have to get together somehow!
    
    I feel hostile about being date raped by anybody.  But, to be honest,
    I guess I would feel more hostile towards another woman.  First,
    because I do have some experience with men in regards to sexual
    situations.  (It's not like it would be the first time.)  And, second,
    because I expect women to know better! :-)
    
    I don't know anything about the violent aspect.  I've never heard
    of a woman violenting raping another woman (except prison stories).
     But, knowing the human race, it's probably happened.
    
    Lorna
    

    Even though I have been fairly open in this file about my identity 
    as a lesbian, I generally take care not to enter into discussions 
    where I don't feel safe.  This note is one of those situations in 
    which I have not felt safe to contribute, and I believe that other 
    lesbians in the file have felt that way, too, and that's probably 
    why few of us have written to this note.  However I do feel compelled 
    to respond to the description offered of the love scene in Desert
    Hearts because I feel that to describe that scene as "date rape" is 
    both misleading and unjust.  

    This is how the author of 251.3 described the scene

    >>Now, Helen is certainly turned on by Patricia, but, as yet, is 
    >>not ready to go any further. Patricia basically doesn't take "no" 
    >>for an answer (she really has the hots for Helen), and she undresses 
    >>Helen, begins to kiss her - the whole thing.
    >>Now, Helen, in retrospect, only had to be led, had to have an assertive
    >>lover, to convince her that it was what she - Helen - really wanted.
    >>Doesn't sound too different from what some boys/men do (or try to do)
    >>with their girlfriends. 
    >>Could the scene that I described from "DH" be considered date rape?


    This is how I remember the scene (and I must admit that I've seen it
    quite a few times.)

    Background:  It's clear as the movie unfolds that there is a great deal
    of sexual tension between the two women, and there has already been
    (by the time the love scene happens) a mutual, passionate kiss between them.
    After the kiss, Helen, the emerging lesbian, kind of "freaks out."
    This is not an uncommon response in women who are just beginning to 
    acknowledge their attraction for other women.  It struck me as I watched
    the movie that Helen was struggling with her own internalized homophobia
    not with confusion about how she felt about Kay.  (Note: Kay is
    the name of the character that actress Patricia Charbonneau plays.)

    The Love scene:

    Kay really misses Helen, and it's clear that Helen's having a tough
    time, too.  Kay knocks on the door and does insist that she be let in.
    Please note, however, that there was no harassment, no threats, no
    manipulation.  The most forceful thing I remember her saying was, "I
    have to talk to you."  Helen and Kay try to talk about what's happened
    between them, but it's obvious that Helen is having a hard time
    reconciling her feelings for (and her physical response to, i.e., the kiss)
    this woman and the rather conservative, "ordered" life that she has led.  
    Helen turns her back, and Kay takes off her clothes, gets in bed,
    and says, "Come here."  She does not insult or threaten Helen, and even
    more importantly, she does not approach Helen.  She simply stays in the
    bed.  Helen was free to leave, but it was clear she didn't want to.
    Finally, Helen approaches Kay, and as I remember it, Helen takes off her
    own bathrobe.  <== in all fairness, though, i think that after helen
                   started to take off her own robe, kay helped her
                   with it - i'd hardly say that compares to a rapist
                   tearing a woman's clothes from her body.  i'm
                   sure that it's fairly common for folks to help
                   their lovers off with their clothes if they seem
                   to need a hand :-)

    In every description of date rape that I have heard or read (at least
    one of which was here in this file), there is some kind of physical,
    psychological, or emotional coercion or blackmail used to overcome the 
    woman's desire not to have sex, e.g., "I'll tell my uncle to fire you
    unless you..." or even, "you invited me in and now you owe it to me." 
    None of those things took place in this movie.  The attraction was
    clearly mutual. The level of sexual confidence and experience were
    different. 

    Another point I'd like to raise - in the book _Desert of the Heart_ (Jane
    Rule) on which the movie was (rather loosely) based, there is no such
    "seduction" seen.  The love and tenderness build between the two women
    and then get expressed as mutual, easy love making.  I can only imagine
    that in order to sell the screen play to the mainstream, some changes
    were made to make it seem "more realistic" (after all, no college
    professor would make such a choice unless she were pursued and seduced.)

    I find it sad (and frightening!) but not all that surprising that many
    men have trouble distinguishing between rape and seduction.  And frankly,
    my own response to that has been to 1. learn to defend myself and 2. have
    as little as possible to do with men who seem unable to make that
    distinction.  I hope that those of you who have not seen the film will
    at least consider my description of it until you are able to see it for
    yourselves.  Better yet, read the book!

    Justine

Thanx for responding Justine. It makes me uncomfortable to see discussions
about women seducing women without a fair amount of lesbian participation.
It's the same discomfort I feel when I see men discussing abortion with men.
It's ok as far as it goes, but it's not the whole picture.
	Mez

    
    You've said it all, Justine.
    
    Thanks, 
    Ann Marie

Re:  .13

Justine,

As a hetero man I'd like to echo Mez's sentiments from .14.  It's difficult
for us to get a sensible perspective on lesbians and lesbianism without
actually reading (and listening) to what lesbians have to say on the subject.
I'm particularly glad that you were able to overcome your concerns and
contribute your .13; I found it very illuminating.

Thanks for writing.  (And I hope you will be able to do so again in similar
discussions in the future!)

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

    Yes, Justine, thanks. That accurately depicted the movie I saw,
    too. There was *NO* physical force used. None, nada, zip. Not once.
    Not ever.  There weren't even any psychological "games" on the parts
    of Kay and uhm...<forgot>...well, Friend. Honest confusion, honest
    caring, caring confusion...yes. But no games.
    
    Thanks again.
    
    --DE
    

Thank you, Justine.  I'm glad we've both seen the same movie!

    
    
    RE:  Date Rape
    
    In one reply I see Date Rape described as being pressured into some-
    thing you aren't interested in and then being sorry after.  That,
    to me, is not 'rape' - date or otherwise.  Rape is where you are
    FORCED into a sexual act (the law requires that there be penetration
    of some form). That force may be prior to the 'act' but sufficient
    to make you fearful for your safety, thus negating any 'consent'
    you might give as coerced. But otherwise, consent of any kind, even 
    that given grudgingly, under pressure, is consent and makes it no 
    longer rape.
    
    Certainly pressuring another person into having sex when they have
    indicated that they do not want to is wrong.  However, the minute
    you give in (again absent force) and say 'yes ', you have to take 
    responsibility for that decision and should not claim rape.  
                                        
    Polly
         

    Perhaps we need a clearer definition of what constitutes "date rape".
    
    I've read statements in this Conference that go: "If a woman says
    'no', she means 'NO', and it's not up to a man to decide if her 'no'
    really means 'yes'".
    
    I have yet to see too many qualifying statements like, "No, it's not
    date rape, if the woman says 'no', but only because she's shy or
    inhibited. She really wants to make love and is confused, and if
    the man is gentle, patient, and does not threaten her with physical
    or emotional harm, it's okay if he continues to try to get her into
    bed". 
    
    I acknowledge that in the movie, Shaver's and Charbonneau's going
    to bed was not unexpected. Nor could the viewer be unaware of the
    sexual excitement that had been building between them.
    
    Yet, going back to (I think) Justine's description of the scene
    where Charbonneau takes off her robe, I wonder what would happen
    in real-life if a woman wrote in that she and her boyfriend were
    sexually turned on to each other. That she really wanted to go to bed
    with him, but was afraid. And, last night, in an attempt to convince
    her, he suddenly pulled off all his clothes and lay naked in the
    bed, waiting for her.    
    
      Alan                                                

    RE: .20
    
    For one thing, it depends on how long he waits.
    It depends on the time of day. (i.e., can she safely walk out and
    go somewhere?) Ditto, weather.
    
    And finally, is there an unspoken statement here that equates
    emotional interaction between men-women and women-women? And men-men?
    I submit that the non-verbal communication between members of the
    same sex is (so) different (as to be 2 different things) from the
    non-verbal communication between members of the opposite sexes.
    
    If a guy gets naked in the bed in a woman's hotel room, and sits
    there with a welcoming smile on his face, is it date rape? I don't
    think so. It's cheeky [heh,heh], but not date rape.
    
    If he does it in her house? It crosses from cheeky to tacky. 
    If he does it in her house at 3 a.m. when she has no place to go?
            It's becoming a game.
    If he does it in a studio apartment? It's a game, it's coercion,
            I'd consider it a good attempt at date rape.
    
    Alan, I think you're looking for a black-and-white answer while
    painting the room gray.
    
    --DE
    

    re.20
    
    For money 'no' is 'no' and the sex of who's doing the saying and
    who's doing the hearing are irrelevant.
    
    I am assuming that we are talking about adults here.  If this
    assumption is anywhere near to being correct, a person who says
    'no' when 'I'm shy and need persuading' is what is meant can count
    on missing out a lot.
    
    'I don't think I'm ready for this' is quite different.  On one hand
    it sets up the expectation that there is interest; on the other
    it does require some measure of respect.
    
    I can't imagine feeling that someone getting naked in my presence
    after getting even an equivocating 'no' obligated me in any way.
    I do confess it would make me a bit un-easy, but unless it was
    accompanied by badgering or threats of escalation I can't construe
    it as an attempt at rape.  [Depending upon circumstance, it could
    constitute mental abuse; but that's a separte issue]
        
    For something completely different:
    
    Alan, in .0 you posed questions following a progression from dressing
    provocatively to seduction to date rape to violent rape among women.
    Given that progression, I find myself wondering at your agenda.
    Any number of 'hidden' questions could be construed without too
    much imagination.
    
      Ann
   
    
    
    
    
    
    
   

    Re .19, I was giving a quick description of what I consider to be
    date rape.  I was not concerned, at the moment, with what the Law
    currently considers to be actual rape.  
    
    I do consider Rape and Date Rape to be two different things.  Just
    because the Law as it exists today may not coincide with my own
    idea of date rape is not, to me, irrefutable proof that I am wrong.
    
    Lorna
    

   RE: .23 
    
   > I am assuming that we are talking about adults here.  If this
   > assumption is anywhere near to being correct, a person who says
   > 'no' when 'I'm shy and need persuading' is what is meant can count
   > on missing out a lot.
    
   Ann, I agree. 
    
   > I can't imagine feeling that someone getting naked in my presence
   > after getting even an equivocating 'no' obligated me in any way.
   > I do confess it would make me a bit un-easy, but unless it was
   > accompanied by badgering or threats of escalation I can't construe
   > it as an attempt at rape.  [Depending upon circumstance, it could
   > constitute mental abuse; but that's a separte issue]
    
   Ann, your defintion of (date)-rape is one I tend to agree with, but 
   as you've read, there seem to be many, differing opinions.     

    
   >     For something completely different:
    
   > Alan, in .0 you posed questions following a progression from dressing
   > provocatively to seduction to date rape to violent rape among women.
   > Given that progression, I find myself wondering at your agenda.
   > Any number of 'hidden' questions could be construed without too
   > much imagination.
    
    Ann, as I mentioned in my basenote, these questions were part of
    a reply I made to a Note in Mennotes. 
    
    It took only a few replies for someone to come in there and state that:
    "If it's all right to look, it's all right to rape, huh"? 
    
    Or, "Just because a woman is provocatively dressed, doesn't give
    men the right to stare at her".
    
    So, the questions I posed there were, I thought, within the context 
    of that note. I grant you, some of them may *appear* to be stream-
    of-consciousnessly written. :-) 
    
    There really isn't any other hidden agenda.
    
      Alan                                     

    Well, I've been off in a series of those famous DEC marathon meetings
    and feel a little out of touch with this file, however, I do want
    to give accolades to Justine for her response to what *really* happened
    in the movie, Desert Hearts.
    
    What troubles me, though, about this note, is that it feels like
    a certain kind of voyeurism, I say to myself, why are men so interested
    in what lesbians do?  I think that if this base note had been generated
    by a woman, I would feel more like, this is a topic that women in
    this file want to discuss.  I also feel that to take something out
    of context like a 'hollywood' movie about lesbians and start generating
    a discussion based on a somewhat unreal representation of a lifestyle,
    especially when you think that this movie was *supposed* to be during
    the '50's, makes me even more uncomfortable.  
    
    

    It's not clear to me that Alan had any hidden agenda behind his
    questions. It seems to me that he was using an example of a
    lesbian relationship (one that anyone with access to a vcr can
    view for him-/herself) as a means of trying to find out where
    the line is (if indeed such a line can be determined) between
    "date rape" and a "legitimate seduction".
    
    I suspect that he is (as I confess I am) uncomfortable by some
    past discussion on the subject of date rape that suggests that
    persuasive actions on a man's part is tantamount to rape. And I
    think he's trying by his example to remove the issue from being
    a "simple" male vs. female argument.
    
    I realize that certain areas are sensitive ones to many people,
    but sometimes men ask questions not to be contentious but simply
    to learn.
    
    re:.26
    
    Why are men so interested in the actions of lesbians? Maybe for
    the same reason that so many people of either sex are interested
    in the actions of heterosexual couples. Simple prurient curiosity.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .27
    
    Jerry, your comments are appreciated.
    
    
    Re: .26
    
    Laura, I'm sorry you have mis-interpreted my reasons for asking the 
    questions I did. They were not asked out of a sense of voyeurism.
    I've been in enough situations to observe for myself just how
    lesbian and bi-sexual women interact sexually with each other.
    
    You stated that you would have felt more comfortable if the basenote
    had been started by a woman.
    
    However, in the one and 1/2 years I've participated in this file,
    I don't recall seeing a lot of discussion on some of the points
    that my questions may have raised. 
                                                                     
    Clearly, there are problems of mis-communication and actions/reactions
    between men are women in both their day-to-day dealings and in their
    "loving" relationships with each other.
    
    Are you saying that, among lesbian women, some of these same problems
    do not exist? 
    
      Alan 

I've been thinking about some stuff for a whole morning now...

I had some of the same reactions to the basenote as some other women have
(nothing personal Alan; I think seeing all the tit-for-tat in 'sound bites' puts
me in a bad mood to begin with [nothing personal people in 'sound bites'...]).

Yet, when I gripe about what cads men are, particularly when it comes to sex
(as opposed to gender), I realize the only way I have to try to put that in
perspective is to wonder how the other half lives (well, the other 10%?). 

Sometimes notes do get enterred in strings about situations that _looked_
male/female at first glance (for instance, I believe a note on abuse from an SO
either explictly called out that it was a same-sex relationship, or let it
open, and so allowed me to think a little more deeply). I appreciate that.

So now the only question is, why don't I get off my duff and start these
discussions, instead of letting a guy :-)?
	Mez

RE: .26
    Thank you for naming the uncomfortable-ness I've been feeling about
    this entire string.  If .0 is really interested in learning more about
    gay and lesbian relationships, there is a wealth of books on the
    subject.  Some are good, others are bad, but at least the reader can
    educate him/herself without intruding on the privacy of others.

    I guess what really bothers me about this string is that while the
    originator's motives may have been pure, the potential for backfire is
    enormous.  And the recipient of the backfire is not the originator,
    but our gay and lesbian members (of society).  With all the homophobia
    that exists, this string could be used not for education but as
    another notch in the homophobic's belt.  I do not want this to happen!
    
    Personally I am straight, but I have lesbian friends and a lesbian
    sister.  I say this not to say, 'I'm better than most, I at least
    socialize with _them_.', but because I truly enjoy their company,
    their outlook on life, and their values for how they interact with
    others; (yes, they're views are similar to mine in some areas).

    I have empathized with the pain that they endure day in and day out
    because of the labels that this society has placed on them.  I also am
    incredibly glad that my sister has finally found happiness for the
    first time in her adult life, because she and her loving partner have
    been able to build a life together.  And I get very angry when I hear
    people try to change her because they (of course ?!?!)  know what's
    better for her than she does herself.   grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

    So, please people, if you're curious about how a segment of the
    population behaves, please try self-education first.  Barring that,
    please consider the actions/reactions of your public questions.

    Thanks for listening.

Well, in the last few replies, a couple of reasons posited for my having
asked these questions are that I'm voyeuristic or homophobic.
    
This is not true.
   
However, at this point, I just might plead guilty to being somewhat maso-
chistic.        
    
RE: .29
    
> Yet, when I gripe about what cads men are, particularly when it comes to sex
> (as opposed to gender), I realize the only way I have to try to put that in
> perspective is to wonder how the other half lives (well, the other 10%?). 

> Sometimes notes do get enterred in strings about situations that _looked_
> male/female at first glance (for instance, I believe a note on abuse from an SO
> either explictly called out that it was a same-sex relationship, or let it
> open, and so allowed me to think a little more deeply). I appreciate that.

> So now the only question is, why don't I get off my duff and start these
> discussions, instead of letting a guy :-)?
	Mez    
    
So, Mez, why don't *you* ask *my* questions? :-)
    
  Alan      

RE:.31 by FDCV13::ROSS

>Well, in the last few replies, a couple of reasons posited for my having
>asked these questions are that I'm voyeuristic or homophobic.

  i think if you look closely at the note referenceing homophobia, you'll see
  that you are not being accused.  What the writer appears to be saying is
  that people who are homophobic could use these notes as more fuel for their
  fires.

>So, Mez, why don't *you* ask *my* questions? :-)
    
Alan, eagle told me! It's safer to react that posit. I still remember the last
basenote I started in wn v1. I was trying to work through a difficult issue,
and all I got was 'that sure is dumb'. It's a jungle out there.
	Mez

re: .37

Speak for yourself, Steve.

M.

    re:.36
    
    Well said. That was my reaction to the suggestion that if I
    wanted to know something, I could look it up in a book rather
    than ask it here.
    
    --- jerry

    Please don't let's go off the deep end on this, folks.  My sense
    is that there's usually quite a lot more offence taken than intended,
    and we'd all be better off if we could try to construe what's said
    in the best light rather than in the worst!
                         
    						=maggie

    
    Well, this was the famous note that was set hidden...
    
    I have edited it to remove the reference to the member only notes
    conference, but Liz, can you give me some help, I now cannot delete
    the .33 version, although I have tried.
    
    Also, I now feel that this is not only a reply to .28 but also to
    .36. 
    
    
    
               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 251.33                  Dressing For Sex-Cess?                     33 of 40
PRYDE::ERVIN "My Karma Ran Over My Dogma"            58 lines  27-OCT-1988 16:51
                       -< Still don't feel comfortable >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .28
    
    The reasons I felt uncomfortable with this base note are two-fold:
    
    1. The base note discussion was being generated off an 'out of context'
       and hollywood 'staged' production, and although I felt that the
       overall effect of the movie was a positive representation of
       the lifestyle, it wasn't necessarily accurate.
    
    2. This is a conference of topics of interest to women, a conference
       whose primary purpose is by and for women, although men participate
       in the discussions here.  I feel that if women wanted to discuss
       this in a public forum, they would have raised it here.
    
    What you were saying in your reply that you've been in this file
    for 1 and 1/2 years and haven't seen these topics raised is really
    saying that you want to address them, and that it is not necessarily
    women that want to address this topic.
    
    I did not say or even imply that there aren't issues within lesbian
    intimate relationships that need to worked out, but neither have
    I heard of date rape or any rape happening between two women (except
    maybe in a prison setting) in the years that I have been in the
    community, travelling around the country, and meeting up with women
    from all over the place at various music festivals.
    
    As stated by others in this file on this particular note, when dealing
    with such a sensitive subject, I feel that it would have been more
    appropriate for a woman to raise this issue.  There is a heck of
    alot of homophobia floating around and many lesbians have been through
    the attitude stuff of 'all she needs is a good f*ck to straighten
    her out...' so I do question what motivates men to be so interested
    in lesbians.  Please also keep in mind that women together is a
    classic scenario in pornography (not men together), and there is
    also the double bind of how we 'queers' are always flaunting and
    forcing our lifestyle on the rest of the world.  So I think there
    are plenty of us who do not welcome a public forum discussion of
    lesbian lifestyles/lesbian sexuality, plus, it also tends to minimize
    the relationship by putting so much focus on the sexual part.
    
    I think that there are so many issues that the average person is
    not aware of when it comes to issues around gay and lesbian lifestyles
    that while a question would appear innocent, it is really loaded.
    And this is not to say that you set out to be insensitive...but
    if you don't have a sense of history for the struggles, then
    inadvertently things can be written that either hurt of feel unsafe.
  
    Laura
    

This note started by discussing dressing to attract attention, then
diverged into a discussion of Desert Heat.  I'd like to introduce
a tangent to the tangent (perhaps a separate note on Desert Heat might
be in order?):

If Desert Heat were made with exactly the same plot and actions, but
with two male actors, 

-- could it be shown publicly?

-- would it find an audience outside of the homosexual community?

-- would it be seen as pandering to [gender's] purient interest?
   (You specify the gender.)

Martin.

ps: feel free to copy this to other appropriate notesfiles (GDE and/or MOVIES).

re: .42

The movie is _Desert Hearts_.

> The movie is _Desert Hearts_.

Guess I'm wearing my Freudian Slip today.

M.

    Laura, if those of us in the heterosexual community are not
    supposed to ask questions, how are we supposed to find out
    whether a particular movie representation of a non-heterosexual
    relationship is accurate, misleading, or exploitive?  
    
    --bonnie

    re: .45
    
    Bonnie,
    
    All I'm saying is that the way the question was raised was not
    necessarily supportive, and that to frame the question around something
    like 'date rape' felt exploitive.
    
    The other piece, which I thought I had mentioned, is that many of
    us may not feel safe or comfortable going into these issues in an
    open/public notes file.  I would think that you might understand
    the extreme sensitivity of the issues given your participation in
    other files.
    
    I would have felt differently if the question had been asked in
    this manner..."Do you feel that the movies Desert Hearts accurately
    portrayed a lesbian relationship or did you find it misleading or
    exploitive?"
    
    Regards,
    
    Laura
    

    
    Asking questions is one thing...superimposing a heterosexual
    interpretation on a LESBIAN love scene and then asking the
    kinds of questions that were asked in the basenote is, to
    say the least, inappropriate.
    
    Ann Marie, speaking as a womannoter not as a mod.

    Well, I see a difference between asking a (one) question, and
    opening an entire area for discussion.
    
    So, Mike Valenza might well have not been jumped on, despite
    his presupposition.  But he would probably have been told to
    go to the library and look it up -- but at least the author and
    title would have been given to him.  :-)
    
    A rambling (or was it progressing in a particular direction? the
    paranoid asked darkly) set of questions, on the other hand, opens
    up a vast field for mis- and valid interpretations.
    
    						Ann B.

    It's pretty easy for members of a minority group ...and not at all
    unreasonable from a survival standpoint, given the behavior of the
    world at large... to automatically suspect the worst when a member of
    the dominant group does/says something where her/his motive isn't
    clear.  I think that that's what has happened/is happening here. 
            
    I also trust that our community here is at least somewhat different to
    the outside world, in that simple ignorance...or at worst arrogant
    ignorance...plays a far greater role than does active malice.  Most of
    the real bozos have gone away mad by now (and wasn't it nice to see the
    back of them!), and the people who remain are those of fundamentally
    good will even though they may express themselves abrasively.  
    
    I think we do ourselves a disservice when we forget that.
         
    						=maggie

    Now the other side:
    
    It's also very easy for the members of our community who are also
    members of the dominant groups in society as a whole...men, straights,
    and caucasians...to presume that anything they say is, ipso facto,
    Right and Proper and that only some out-of-control radical could
    possible take offence.  Trust me: that is positively not the case.
    
    There's nothing easier or more common than for members of a dominant
    group to seize on some characteristic --whether real or mythological--
    of a minority group and use that as a combination lever and club
    against them. It happens all the time.  When the members of any
    devalued group talk with one another, their experiences of the world
    are painfully similar;  it isn't paranoia, it isn't oversensitivity,
    it's *real* *life*.
    
    So if you are a member of one or more of the dominant groups, you would
    do well to mind your tongue *very* *carefully* in here.  Stop and think
    before you speak:  what's the worst construction that can be put on
    what you're going to say?  That's probably exactly what will happen if
    you go forward because that suspiciousness has survival value for
    members of devalued groups. 
    
    So if you really want to learn rather than confront, watch your mouth!
    Explain your motives carefully, be slow to take offence, listen
    more than talk.  Remember what your goal is.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .51
    
    Thanks for the clarification, Maggie,
    
    Today has been a rough day for me and I was feeling tread upon.
    When I read your first moderator response, note forty-something,
    I just didn't have it in me to respond.
    
    But I feel better now.  So thanks.
    
    Regards,
    
    Laura
    

    re: .46 [I think; I just lost track of where I was] 
    
    Laura, I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to imply that I thought you or
    anyone else should have been sharing anything you felt
    uncomfortable sharing. I don't think you're responsible for the
    base noter's upbringing and you don't even have to educate him if
    you don't feel like it. I was trying to say in my own ineffective
    way what Maggie put so much better in her notes, that if we're to
    communicate, we have to assume each other's best intentions until
    it's proven otherwise. The base noter's questions may have been
    ignorant and biased, but there's no reason to think he didn't ask
    in good faith. 
    
    --bonnie

    	Well, after seeing the origin of this basenote (i.e., a
    	discussion in Mennotes about a woman who went to the
    	supermarket dressed in a manner that men would consider
    	'provocative' but who became angry when a man started
    	staring at her in an admiring way...) -- I didn't get
    	the impression that Alan was referring to Lesbians at
    	all.
    
    	Knowing Alan as well as I do (from this conference, etc.),
    	I'm POSITIVE that he did NOT mean to offend anyone.
    
    	However, it is well-known that the idea of "pseudo-lesbianism"
	(i.e., women who have sex together in a way that is meant for
    	the pleasure of heterosexual men) is a big turn-on for
    	many hetero men.
    
    	In the case of the woman who went to the supermarket while
    	dressed provocatively, *some* men in Mennotes were quite angered
    	that she made a negative comment to the man she caught staring
    	at her.  They felt that she should have *known* that men would
    	be attracted by her mode of dress (therefore, it was essentially
    	HER FAULT that she received appreciative stares.)
    
    	When some women tried to explain that there might have been
    	some good reason why the woman was dressed that way (at the
    	supermarket) and that one cannot *assume* that women who dress
    	nicely in public are trying to attract the admiring glances
    	of total strangers, Alan posed the question that perhaps some
    	women dress in ways that men would find 'provocative' when
    	they are *actually* trying to attract women instead.
    
    	When I first heard his comments in Mennotes, it sounded to me
    	as though he had gotten carried away with the "pseudo-lesbian"
    	fantasy involved in picturing a woman in a supermarket who is
    	dressed in a way that has many of the nearby men literally
    	DROOLING for her while she is (actually) dressed that way
    	because she is hot for the women who might be shopping there
    	that night (presumably the straight women who are there.)
    
    	Thus, it followed that the next question would be along the
    	lines of what chances this "pseudo-lesbian" might have in
    	seducing women in the supermarket (or wherever.)
    
    	A strange woman dressed nicely in a supermarket can *easily*
    	be the object of a great fantasy for a few men who are standing
    	in line with bread and milk staring at her.  The idea that she
    	is there because she is hot for other straight women at the
    	store would be a more interesting fantasy for some men.
    
    	Please don't take offense to this, Alan, but I got the distinct
    	impression that your questions were merely a way to share that
    	"interesting" heterosexual male fantasy with others (and that
    	you might have gotten a little carried away with it.)

    after just coming back from a two day valuing differences
    conference for my group....
    
    
    I must admit to some responsibility for Alan's base note. He
    had brought the subject up in mens notes and we had discussed
    the issue by mail. I told him that I had no experience that
    would allow me to give an honest answer on the subject and
    suggested that he raise the issue in woman notes.
    
    so if any blame is to be applied, I deserve some for suggesting
    that this was an appropirate place to ask the question.
    
    Bonnie
    who isn't sure if she is a moderator or an noter on this one

    Gee, I come back after a day to find wholesale deletion of notes
    (nota bene: I'm not accusing the mods of doing the deleting),
    other notes responding to notes that are no longer there, and at
    least two noters with personal names that read: "set ___ hidden".
    
    Looks like a conspiracy to me. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    
    The wimmin are setting the us hidden...
    
    They want us to retreat into our holes now...-;

                                
    re -.1
    
    >We always believed there was too much male "presence" here anyway!
    
    I don't know what's funnier, your "imperial we" or your admission
    that you note here too much!

    re: 57
      Not holes, ROCKS!  Under rocks.  Get it right.

    Ok, now, to regroup here...
    
    After a few explanatory notes, am I on the right track if I
    think this note was *intended* to ask, essentially:
    
    If a woman dresses attractively to go about her daily, mundane,
    activities she is "asking for" attention from strange men, and 
    thus has no right to act as if she doesn't want said attention???
    
    --DE
    

    	RE:  .61
    
    	That was pretty much the way it was sized up in its original
    	form (in another conference) -- you're right.
    

    RE: .61 and .62
    
    Dawn and Suzanne, rather than saying that that the woman is "asking
    for" attention, I'd phrase it more like she shouldn't be surprised
    if she "receives" attention, when she's the only one "dressed-up"
    in a setting where everyone else is in more casual attire.
    
    This situation - standing out in a crowd and being "noticed" -
    applies to anyone, male or female, when he/she is under- or
    overdressed for a particular occasion. 
    
    The overdressed (or underdressed) person's motives may *not* be
    to attract attention. However, she/he should not be totally surprised
    if they (I'm getting tired of my he/she pronouns) do.
    
      Alan 

Alan, 

I'm sure you'll think this is a nit (ok, I'll bet a quarter you think this is a
nit...), but I _really_ dislike being told how I 'should' feel. I think a lot
of women feel that way. So, if you want to address your audience in a manner
conducive to their listening, you could rephrase.

Then again, we could all blunder along...	
	Mez

    re: .63
    
    Speaking of getting attention when you're dressed up more than
    the average:
    
    We normally shop at one of two "commuter"-type grocery stores,
    where many of the customers do their shopping on their way home
    from work.  You see people in hospital and restaurant uniforms, in
    coveralls and in full business suits. Your ordinary shopper in
    jeans or sweats is in the minority. 
    
    A couple of weeks ago, I stopped on the way home for milk and
    juice.  And in the dairy aisle I ran into an elderly couple in
    full formal dress -- she was wearing a maroon formal with a pink
    orchid corsage, a diamond necklace, and a mink jacket, and he was
    in a very sharp black tuxedo, and they had one of the plastic
    shopping baskets between them and were picking up crackers and
    cheese and wine while a gray Mercedes with chauffeur waited for
    them outside.  And they did get some attention, in the sense that
    people noticed them. 
    
    But getting glances when you're dressed differently than everybody
    else is to be expected.  Getting something more than glances is
    something else.  Is that the kind of "attention" you're talking
    about? 
    
    --bonnie 

    re .61:
    
    {trying not to confuse the issue further, but...}
    
    > If a woman dresses attractively to go about her daily, mundane,
    > activities she is "asking for" attention from strange men, and 
    > thus has no right to act as if she doesn't want said attention???
      
    The way I understood .0 was asking what motivates a woman to dress
    provacatively. Not to imply that she has no right to refuse male
    attention when she does so. 
    
    I thought .0's *only* assumption was that a woman dresses provacatively
    to attract *someone*, and if they clearly react negatively to male
    attention, could it be that she is dressing to attract another woman?
    Clearly missing the remaining option that she dresses to suit herself
    and "provacative" is in the eye of the beholder.
    
    This is simply my own understanding of the original question as
    posed in this conference. It in no way is intended to invalidate
    anyone else's interpretation.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

RE: .64
    
> Alan, 

> I'm sure you'll think this is a nit (ok, I'll bet a quarter you think
> this is a nit...), but I _really_ dislike being told how I 'should' feel.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think a lot of women feel that way. So, if you want to address your 
> audience in a manner conducive to their listening, you could rephrase.

Mez, I'm getting even more confused. Are you saying that in my .63,
I seem to be telling Dawn and Suzanne how they should feel? If, indeed,
that's what you're saying, could you please let me know what I wrote there
that makes you think that's what I'm doing?            
    
> Then again, we could all blunder along...
    
>    Mez
    
We seem to be doing really well in our efforts to blunder..... :-)    
     
     RE: .65
    
     >  But getting glances when you're dressed differently than everybody
     >  else is to be expected.  Getting something more than glances is
     >  something else.  Is that the kind of "attention" you're talking
     >  about? 
    
     >  --bonnie 
    
     Bonnie, I'm not sure what you mean by "getting something more than
     glances". Are you asking what's the difference between glancing,
     or noticing, and staring?
    
       Alan 

You a male (I assume) are saying how a generic female should feel in a
particular situation. Me, a female, could easily someday a specific female in
that particular situation. And I could feel differently than you say a female
should feel in that situation. And I would have been (ready) _invalidated_!
That's how it works!

>Are you saying that in my .63,
>I seem to be telling Dawn and Suzanne how they should feel? 

Well, if they are as egocentric as I am, and can imagine themselves in the same
situation, then yes. Else no.

How we doin'?
	Mez

    RE: .68
    
    > You a male (I assume) are saying how a generic female should feel
    > in a particular situation.
    
    Mez, do you mean in .63?
    
    > How we doin'?
    >         Mez
    
    Oh, we're *really* havin' fun now. :-)
    
      Alan

re: .67

>    Bonnie, I'm not sure what you mean by "getting something more
>    than glances". Are you asking what's the difference between
>    glancing, or noticing, and staring? 
    
    Alan, I think we may have fallen into a semantic trap here.
    
    When a woman says she received unwanted attention in a public
    place, she frequently means she has received one or more of the
    following: 
    
    vulgar remarks addressed from one man to the other in a voice loud
    enough to make sure she heard
    
    vulgar remarks loud enough to be heard in the next county
    ("catcalls")
    
    direct propositions and insults
    
    unwelcome touches, pinches, etc.

    So when in .63 you say:
    
    >    Dawn and Suzanne, rather than saying that that the woman is "asking
    >for" attention, I'd phrase it more like she shouldn't be surprised
    >if she "receives" attention, when she's the only one "dressed-up"
    >in a setting where everyone else is in more casual attire.

    a lot of women are going to think you mean that a woman who
    is attractively dressed should expect to be addressed, touched,
    or otherwise harrassed without having done anything whatsoever
    to invite this unwelcome attention.    

    So your remark is loaded in a way you probably didn't realize
    when you wrote it.
    
    --bonnie

Yuppers Alan, .63:

> I'd phrase it more like she shouldn't be surprised
>    if she "receives" attention, when she's the only one "dressed-up"
>    in a setting where everyone else is in more casual attire.

...
    
>However, she/he should not be totally surprised
>    if they (I'm getting tired of my he/she pronouns) do.

	Mez

    Thats all????????

    Okay, Dawn, Suzanne, Mez and Bonnie.
    
    By my use of the term "receives attention", I mean that she
    should not be surprised if she's "looked at" (*not* ogled, leered
    at, propositioned, touched, visually raped, cat-called, pinched....).
    
    Just......... looked at. 
    
    And, yes, she may indeed feel uncomfortable to be looked at, and
    she has a right to her feelings.
    
    Has all this come about because of semantics?
    
      Alan                 

           
    	Re .72
    
    	Pie Tins? I hope she kept away from large magnets ;-)
    
    	Guy  Novello

    Alan, I have 10 bucks that says that:   
    
    Woman who is dressed up believes the attention she got was rude,
    demeaning and objectifying.
    
    Man who gave her the attention believes he was being appreciative
    of her ...uh..."dressed-up-ness".
    
    
    We're talking here about two people who have been brought up in
    different cultures, who speak almost 2 different languages, and
    who have 2 totally different ways of relating to other people.
    It is only lately that the members of the non-dominant culture
    have come to believe that they have the right to be (shall we say
    for convenience) "full members" of the culture rather than accepting
    the mores and values of the dominant culture.
    
    Thus, we have these clashes of language, perception, etc.
    
    I, of course, would say that the guy went about it in the wrong
    way (assuming my premise is accurate), and could've been more
    tactful.
    
    (BTW- I agree with Mez. It did sound like you were prescribing some
    generic way for women to act in a situation.)
    
    --DE
    

The following reply is being entered for a member of the community
    who wishes to be anonymous.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    
I have had a lot of mixed feelings about replying here.

It was asked whether Lesbians have ever experienced date-rape by a woman.
I had a difficult experience once, but have never been able to label it.
I hope that people will realize that this is *not* a common occurence in
the Lesbian community, and that most Lesbians are much too sensitive to
do something like what this woman did.  

Many years ago I was attracted to a Lesbian who, for some reason, was 
concerned about dating me, even though she was attracted to me (I think
it was due to the fact that she did not consider herself attractive and 
did not think that I could see her as such).  Her name was Pat.  Although 
Pat knew that I was attracted to her, she pressed me to go out with a woman
that was attracted to me, whom I had just met.  Pat knew this woman, as did
several of my other friends.  I will call the other woman "Dee".  After a lot
of pressure from Pat to go out with Dee, even though I had no interest in Dee,
I went out with her.

I met Dee at her apartment.  Instead of going out, she planned for us to have
dinner at her place and watch TV.  I don't remember the details well, as this
was so long ago.  I was 20 years old and *very* naive.  I was not attracted 
to her.  I know we have discussed this before, and it is a matter of personal
taste, but I do *not* like tatoos, and Dee had several.  Mostly, I was just
too interested in Pat.  Dinner was fine, TV was fine, but I was getting tired
and wanted to leave.  I lived far away, and if I tried to drive home too late,
then I would fall asleep driving (yes, this had happened).  Dee insisted that
I stay, that I could spend the night there.  I agreed so long that it was
absolutely understood that it would be platonic.  

I continued to watch TV with her.  I was trying *very* hard to be attracted to
her, and to be nice to her, because this is what Pat seemed to want, and 
whatever Pat wanted, I would try to do.  (I told you I was naive).  I gave her
a shoulder/upper back rub while we watched.  We ended up kissing after we
lay in bed -- I don't remember how that started.  She carried it further.
At first I didn't know what was happening.  I just lay there.  I was stunned.
It finally dawned on me what she was doing (it was *not* platonic) and then
I still just lay there, not knowing what to do.  I felt dirty.

Afterwards I kept running into her at various functions.  She was always very
nice, but I avoided her like the plague.   I never dated her again.

This is the *only* experience of its kind that I have ever experienced or
even heard of.  I don't know what her feelings were.  At the time someone
told me that backrubs are often preludes to lovemaking and that maybe she
thought that I was saying that I was really interested after all.  Looking
back at it now, many years later, I still don't know what to think.

Most of all, I want to say now that Lesbians as a rule are very caring, 
sensitive women. For some reason I think that if the same thing had happened
with a man I would feel much worse about the whole thing.  I would tend to
think that he had acted because he didn't care about my feelings, whereas 
with a woman I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt more and think
that maybe she misunderstood.

But I still feel bad thinking about it.

'Delia'

Dear ANON, 

	>> I was 20 years old and *very* naive.

    From the rest of your text I would say that you are still **VERY**
    Naive, for a violation of your trust and your body are still a violation.
    I do not think that YOU should have a double set of standards.

	>> For some reason I think that if the same thing had happened with
	>> a man I would feel much worse about the whole thing.  I would 

    Could you explain why a theoretical situation with a may would be worse
    than what actually happened with a woman.  I feel that if I were a woman
    I would consider equally offensive an act of RAPE by either man or woman.
    I am not a woman, so I only speak from an outsiders viewpoint.

	>> think that he a had acted because he didn't care about my feelings.
	>> whereas with a woman I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt
	>> more and think that maybe she misunderstood.

    It looks like you have given the benefit of the doubt, and is that Because
    you are trying to hard to justify what happened.  You could be thinking
    that you are in some small way responsible, and want to ease your own
    conscience.  I think that some men could use a "benefit of the Doubt"
    In a similar situation, I am not condoning any wrongdoings, but a double
    Standard is what is implied here, and if you want to be fair, then condemn
    or condone equally.  

	>> But I still feel bad thinking about it.

    I Sympathize with you, and understand your feelings, but I fail to see
    where a woman can be granted a right to use your body, and you would
    condemn a man for the same liberties.  Could you elucidate a bit here?

Concerned about equality, Implied that you would yell RAPE if the perpetrator
had been MALE and that you understand, when it is a FEMALE.  Where is the
Fairness here.

Dave

    Re: .79
    
    >> think that he a had acted because he didn't care about my feelings.
    >> whereas with a woman I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt
    >> more and think that maybe she misunderstood.
    
    >In a similar situation, I am not condoning any wrongdoings, but a double
    >Standard is what is implied here, and if you want to be fair, then condemn
    >or condone equally.  
    
    I noticed that section myself, thought about it a bit, and I think
    it makes sense to me.  The idea is that a woman ought to understand
    better the impact of being raped and therefore should be less likely
    to rape.  Since she should be less likely to do it intentionally,
    it must have been unintentional.  A man, on the other hand, not
    having as strong an understanding, would be more capable of raping
    intentionally.  It comes down to the idea that, especially in sexual
    situations, a woman's feelings would be better understood by another
    woman than by a man.
    
    So, yes, if you want consistency, a man ought to be given a benefit
    of a doubt or a woman ought to be condemned.  But I can understand
    how the inconsistency might arise.