Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Moved from topic 99...
        
================================================================================
Note 99.10                    Side Effects of Rape                      10 of 47
MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE "Purple power!"                    17 lines  21-MAR-1989 10:33
                                 -< a thought >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    From a newsgroup I occasionally follow:
    ------------------------------

    March 14, 1989          Message 1925 from Eileen Schwab
    
    On the office door across from my office the following is posted:
    
	If women who wear sexy outfits secretly want to be raped...
 	does that mean...
    
	men who wear expensive suits secretly want to be robbed?
        
    
    Everyone I've shared this with has said "Hmmm, I never thought of
    it that way."
      
================================================================================
Note 99.11                    Side Effects of Rape                      11 of 47
RUTLND::KUPTON "Thinner in '89"                      15 lines  21-MAR-1989 11:15
                         -< Reaching a bit, me thinks >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re:Liz
    
    >Does a woman who wears sexy clothes want to be raped?
    >Does a man who wears expensive clothes want to be robbed?
    
    That doesn't wash. You know it and we know it.
    
    That should read: Does a man who wears sexy clothes want to be raped?
    or Does a womwn who wears expensive clothes want to be robbed?
    
    Rape to women and robbery to men aren't even in the same arena.
    
    Did you bring your lunch today or did you walk??
    
    Ken
================================================================================
Note 99.12                    Side Effects of Rape                      12 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 11 lines  21-MAR-1989 12:02
                             -< apples to apples >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I don't think that very many people want to be raped. I don't think very many 
people want to be robbed.

 If a woman wears very sexy clothes and conducts herself in a provocative 
manner in a place where guys are known to be animals, it is no different than
a man (or woman) dressing to excess with all of the accompanying gold jewelry
and money flashing in a crime infested place. They may not want it. But they
are asking for it.(Which doesn't make the crime right, just more likely to
happen.)

 The Doctah

moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.13                    Side Effects of Rape                      13 of 47
SALEM::LUPACCHINO "There's a world beyond this room." 7 lines  21-MAR-1989 12:13
                                -< Excuse me?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 re: .11 
        
 I can do without the snide remarks, thanks.  I think the point of.10 is that
 how one is dress is not a cause/invitation to violate said person.
    
 Ann Marie, a noter  
================================================================================
Note 99.14                    Side Effects of Rape                      14 of 47
RUTLND::KUPTON "Thinner in '89"                      26 lines  21-MAR-1989 15:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	I reread my reply (.11) and I see where Ann Marie might think
    it snide. I think it makes a statement about how easily we lose
    sight of what we want to say. I thought it quite unfair to so casually
    make a comparison to suit one's needs. I'd be willing to bet that
    a lot of women would have nodded in agreement with the sign that
    Liz told us about. I also see how quick the anger surfaces when
    that same sign is reversed. I'd be willing to bet that any man
    who hung a sign with my reversal would be in personnel within seconds
    after putting it up. While many women feel that it's justifiable
    to put up the original. 
    
    	I don't agree with double standards and making carte blanc remarks
    or signs that express statements like that are unfair and don't
    help to make a woman's effort for equality in the workplace easier.
    If anything that type of thing causes deep resentment in men because
    most of us believe that anyone should be able to wear what we want
    without fear of retribution. I don't want to get into a session
    on dress and behavior because that's in another note. 
    
    	My reply (.11) was not meant to be snide, rude, or sexist. It
    was meant to get some attention to the fact that we sometimes make
    statements that send different messages to different audiences.
    
    Ken
    
    	
================================================================================
Note 99.15                    Side Effects of Rape                      15 of 47
TUT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned faith" 14 lines  21-MAR-1989 16:00
                           -< Try it this way, then >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .11, .14
    
    Do you go along with this, then:
    
    	Does a woman who wears sexy clothes want to be raped?
        Does *anyone* who wears expensive clothes want to be robbed?
        Does *anyone* who drives [substitute name of whatever expensive
    car is "in" these days] wnat to have their car stolen?
    
    Having first heard this comparison in terms of a woman's attire
    and someone owning a flashy Cadillac, I didn't "tune in" on the
    *man* in the comparison.  Sorry *you* did!
    
    Nancy

Moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.16                    Side Effects of Rape                      16 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."                   15 lines  21-MAR-1989 18:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: .14
    
    >I thought it quite unfair to so casually make a comparison to suit
    >one's needs.
    
    I didn't find it casual at all.  I don't see the analogy as "rape
    and robbery are similar."  I see the point of similarity as "dress
    advertises desires."
    
    >If anything that type of thing causes deep resentment in men because
    >most of us believe that anyone should be able to wear what we want
    >without fear of retribution.
    
    I'm not understanding how the sign would contribute to retribution
    for wearing something.
================================================================================
Note 99.17                    Side Effects of Rape                      17 of 47
HAMPS::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action." 20 lines  22-MAR-1989 09:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    re .10: bad analogy.
    
    A few years ago the US Dept of Justice did a research program in
    which they showed convicted muggers cine film of people walking
    down the street and questioned them on which they would target to
    rob.
    
    They consistently picked out men [and women] wearing expensive clothes
    
    They consistently picked out men [and women] with abnormal walking
    patterns (eg swinging left arm with left leg and right arm with
    right leg, rather than contra-swinging).
    
    It categorically stated that victims "self-selected themselves"
    by their behaviour. This is preceisely what people mean when they
    say that women who wear sexy clothes "want" to be raped: that they
    behave in a way that makes them self selected victims.
    
    /. Ian .\
================================================================================
Note 99.18                    Side Effects of Rape                      18 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "Words like winter snowflakes"           8 lines  22-MAR-1989 11:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    This is preceisely what people mean when they
>    say that women who wear sexy clothes "want" to be raped: that they
>    behave in a way that makes them self selected victims.

That was not my impression. I thought they were talking about deep, dark
fantasies. But I haven't had the opportunity to ask someone who might say that
what they mean. The unfortunate side of being so obviously a feminist.
	Mez

moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.19                    Side Effects of Rape                      19 of 47
TRADE::SULLIVAN "Karen - 291-0008"                   20 lines  23-MAR-1989 16:23
                                  -< what?! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: .12

> If a woman wears very sexy clothes and conducts herself in a provocative 
>manner in a place where guys are known to be animals, it is no different than
>a man (or woman) dressing to excess with all of the accompanying gold jewelry
>and money flashing in a crime infested place. They may not want it. But they
>are asking for it.(Which doesn't make the crime right, just more likely to
>happen.)


        The point was that dress doesn't mean you're asking for
        anything.  The memo was pointing that out, not pointing out
        that men could be asking to be robbed by wearing expensive
	clothes.

	They do not want it, and they are *not* asking for it.  It
	is wrong for someone else to claim that they are asking for
	it.  Don't blame the victim.

	...Karen
================================================================================
Note 99.20                    Side Effects of Rape                      20 of 47
NOETIC::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante"              9 lines  23-MAR-1989 17:52
                         -< so where do they happen? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      I believe that women who dress in a sexy manner *do not* want to get
      raped. I also believe that if they dress this way and walk alone
      at night that they greatly increase their chances of this
      happening. Does anyone have any stats on where most rapes occur?
      If the women are usually at home and the rape is part of a breakin
      clothes probably have nothing to do with it. Certainly anyone
      raping an old woman or a child is not being "turned on" by sexy
      clothes. liesl
================================================================================
Note 99.21                    Side Effects of Rape                      21 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."                   12 lines  23-MAR-1989 18:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the sort of argument that comes from terminology again.
    "Asking for it" can mean "making a request," which implies a desire
    for such an action.  "Asking for it" can also mean "acting in a
    way that encourages such behavior" and does not necessarily imply
    any desire for the reaction.
    
    Suffice to say that women who dress in a "sexy manner" and walk
    alone at night are putting themselves at greater risk, and they
    should be aware of this.  However, this does not imply that they
    desire to be raped.  (If anyone did, either she doesn't have a good
    understanding of what rape is all about or she has problem that
    requires psychiatric counseling.)
================================================================================
Note 99.22                    Side Effects of Rape                      22 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern"  9 lines  24-MAR-1989 07:46
                              -< thanks, Chelsea >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: asking for it

 As Chelsea stated, in this context, "asking for it" simply means acting in a 
manner that makes <rape> more likely. If I flash a wad of cash in front of a
bunch of homeless people, then settle down for a nap on a park bench nect to 
them, I am "asking for it,"  where "it" is robbery. I hope you can see the 
parallel I was trying to draw.

 the Doctah

    Moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.23                    Side Effects of Rape                      23 of 47
SUPER::HENDRICKS "The only way out is through"       12 lines  24-MAR-1989 08:08
                       -< I think there's a difference. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It's the connotation of "asking for it" that bothers me.
    
    I agree that flashing cash or flashing legs in the combat zone after
    dark is stupid, but it don't think it says anything about the person's
    intention, or desire, to become a victim.  It shows a lack of
    good judgement.
    
    When men are mugged, they are often considered to have been "in the
    wrong place at the wrong time".  When women are raped, too often "they
    must have been asking for it".
    
    Holly 
================================================================================
Note 99.24                    Side Effects of Rape                      24 of 47
QUARK::LIONEL "The dream is alive"                   11 lines  24-MAR-1989 08:25
                                 -< No excuse >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: "asking for it"
    
    More to the point, I think, is the widespread acceptance of the
    notion that "asking for it" renders the attacker blameless, and
    instead convicts the victim.
    
    No matter how much cash one flashes in front of the homeless, it's
    still wrong for them to steal it from you.  No matter how
    provocatively a woman dresses, it's still wrong to rape her. 
    
    				Steve
================================================================================
Note 99.25                    Side Effects of Rape                      25 of 47
HYDRA::LARU "Surfin' the Zuvuya"                      7 lines  24-MAR-1989 09:31
                           -< major flaming rathole >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think it smacks of classism and prejudice to single
    out the homeless as being more likely to rob one, than
    say, Donald Trump.  Just because someone is poor does
    not mean that their ethics are inferior to your own.
    Indeed, it is quite possible that the opposite is true.
    
    /bruce

    Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.26                    Side Effects of Rape                      26 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 29 lines  24-MAR-1989 09:57
                                   -< xxxx >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: convicting the victim

 While it is obvious that the victim of crime is not the guilty party, 
intelligent behavior can go a long way in preventing the crime from happening
in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There are
certain behaviors that trigger criminals to commit crimes. This does not
mitigate the severity of the crime whatever, nor has anyone implied such 
nonsense. Using your head can help prevent you from being a victim. If you
continue to engage in dangerous behavior (of any kind) you must be cognizant
of the increased possibility of misadventure.

 There are a great many crimes which occur for no apparent reason. There are
also a great many preventable crimes. It does not make sense to say "I think
I'll walk in the tunnels at Central Park tonight at midnight by myself with
no protection and assume that I will not be a victim of crime because it is
illegal." When you engage in dangerous behavior like that you must accept 
responsibility for putting yourself at greater risk. This does not mean that you
wouldn't try to put your attacker in jail. This doesn't mean that an attack in
Central park is any less devastating than one on 5th Avenue. It just means that
you have the power to prevent some kinds of crimes.

re: classisism and prejudice

 Well, /bruce, you can get all upset about it or not. The fact is, statistically
speaking, you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime, or robbery from
a have not than a have. You can say how terrible it is that someone would point
that out, but the facts do not change. Sorry.

 The Doctah
================================================================================
Note 99.27                    Side Effects of Rape                      27 of 47
ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Secure Systems for Insecure Peop" 11 lines  24-MAR-1989 10:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: .25

Good point, Bruce.

Re: .26

    It's the  word  violent  that makes the last paragraph work. White
    collar  criminals  don't  carry a gun, but they steal a great deal
    more than anyone makes by breaking and entering.

--David
================================================================================
Note 99.28                    Side Effects of Rape                      28 of 47
TUT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned faith"  3 lines  24-MAR-1989 10:58
                     -< Depends on your def. of violence >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Violence perptrated by a large system of some kind (corporation,
    government, gonglomerate, whatever) can be even more devastating
    because it works slowly and kills the spirit, too...
================================================================================
Note 99.29                    Side Effects of Rape                      29 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "Words like winter snowflakes"          11 lines  24-MAR-1989 11:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a reply a bit back about what kind of behaviour muggers gravitate
towards. One of the criteria was walking strangely. Another had something to do
with looks or dress, but I didn't remember the reply being specific on that.

So, I ask: are there any studies indicating or implying how rapists chose their
victims? I seem to remember the majority being female. And that a high
percentage knew their assailant.  The latter seems to contradict the theory
that the clothes you wear are a danger; it's the people you know.

Anything else? Pointers?
	Mez

    Moved from topic 99....
    
================================================================================
Note 99.31                    Side Effects of Rape                      31 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."                   12 lines  24-MAR-1989 12:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There's a scene in _Someone to Watch Over Me_ where Tom Berenger
    explains that muggers don't attack people who walk oddly -- I guess
    people who don't move directly from point A to point B, or show
    some strong individuality.
    
    When my mother was a young woman, she occasionally had to pass some
    Boston bars at night on the way home.  She would walk briskly, swinging
    her arms with her hands in fists, looking directly where she was
    going; she says she never had any trouble.  I suspect an important
    signal to send when walking is "I know exactly where I'm going and
    how I'm going to get there."  It conveys confidence, competence
    and determination, which are not traits usually looked for in victims.
================================================================================
Note 99.32                    Side Effects of Rape                      32 of 47
SA1794::CHARBONND "I'm the NRA"                       4 lines  24-MAR-1989 12:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I would say the guy flashing the cash was negligent.
    Self-defense is not a part-time attitude. At the least, one 
    should be aware of one's surroundings. I know my eyes tend to 
    move more when I cash my check and leave the bank. 
================================================================================
Note 99.33                    Side Effects of Rape                      33 of 47
CURIE::ROCCO                                         16 lines  24-MAR-1989 16:47
                            -< Rape is not for sex >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have an pointers to exact studies but from what I have read rape is
not so much an act of sex, or desire for sex as it is for violence. I doubt
that pretty women are raped more often than unattractive women, and I 
question if provacatively dressed women are raped more than conservatively
dressed women, since it doesn't seem to be a question of a man getting
turned on and unable to help himself.

It goes back to looking like a victim - so do certain ways a woman is dressed
make her look more like a victim?

I think the psychology of gang rape is a bit different - and my gut reaction
is that a provacatively dressed women is at more risk - but again I haven't
seen any studies.

Muggsie

================================================================================
Note 99.34                    Side Effects of Rape                      34 of 47
TRADE::SULLIVAN "Karen - 291-0008"                   30 lines  24-MAR-1989 17:13
                    -< it's not my fault that acorn hit me >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	RE: asking for it

	The problem with the mind set of saying that someone is
	"asking for it", or just that they were stupid or negligent
	is still that blame is being placed on the victim.  Don't
	come up with extreme examples of people flashing money
	in front of possible muggers.  The fact is that a person
	could have nice clothes and look well off and just happen
	to be somewhere where a mugger hangs out, and they get
	mugged.  You can't tell them that they shouldn't have
	been there, or they should have tried to dress poorly, it's
	not their fault.  It's like blaming someone who gets hit
	by another car during rush hour, since they should have known
	going out at that time is more dangerous, and they shouldn't
	have risked it just to pick up some unimportant item at the store.

	People who are raped have *no* part of the blame no matter how
	sexy they dress and no matter where they happened to be at the
	time.  Women get raped no matter what they are wearing or
	where they are, so there's no sense in even considering that
	they must be dressed wrong.  All too often, victims in any
	type of crime get asked what did they do to invite that crime.
	If you allow the concept of "asking for it" or negligence, at
	what fine line do you allow the victim to be blameless?  When
	they're barricaded in a fortress without any human contact?

	...karen

	p.s. Of course people should take precautions, but even
	when they're not taken they are still blameless when victimized.

    Moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.35                    Side Effects of Rape                      35 of 47
ANT::ZARLENGA "that funky cold medina"               16 lines  25-MAR-1989 16:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.34>	                               The fact is that a person
.34>	could have nice clothes and look well off and just happen
.34>	to be somewhere where a mugger hangs out, and they get
.34>	mugged.
    
	"You were asking for it" is such a lame excuse.
    
    	It isn't a crime to dress in expensive or sexy clothes.
    
    	It is a crime to mug or rape someone.
    
    	Seems to me it should be a simple matter to decide guilt, and
    it's about time people started taking responsibility for their actions.
    
    -mike z
================================================================================
Note 99.36                    Side Effects of Rape                      36 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 35 lines  27-MAR-1989 08:40
                   -< only if you don't shake the tree :-) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>	The problem with the mind set of saying that someone is
>	"asking for it", or just that they were stupid or negligent
>	is still that blame is being placed on the victim.  Don't
>	come up with extreme examples of people flashing money
>	in front of possible muggers.

 Blame is not placed on the victim for being raped or mugged or whatever. Blame 
is being placed on the victim ONLY for placing themselves at higher risk of
victimization. Nobody is claiming that crime is justified or can be mitigated
because of victims' behavior. What is being claimed is that people can influence
their fate in many cases, and to ignore this fact is tantamount to stupidity.
BTW- the "extreme" example holds.

>	People who are raped have *no* part of the blame no matter how
>	sexy they dress and no matter where they happened to be at the
	
 If you accept this premise, then why do you have locks on your front doors?
Is it because, even though you recognize that robbery is illegal, you feel that
a little preventative medicine goes a long way towards preventing crime? What
about your car? Do you lock it when you go into Boston or any large, crime 
infested city? Why?

>	p.s. Of course people should take precautions, but even
>	when they're not taken they are still blameless when victimized.

 I would say that blameless is not correct here, in my understanding of the 
word. I think guilty is more accurate. A crime victim may not be guilty of
anything, but may have contributed to their becoming a victim. If you leave your
keys in your car (unlocked) and your car gets stolen, you are not guilty of
anything, but you share a (very small) portion of the blame because you
facilitated your own victimization. It doesn't make it any more right to have
your car stolen. The theif still ought to go to jail. But you have to 
acknowledge the impact of your actions on the commission of the crime.

 The Doctah
================================================================================
Note 99.37                    Side Effects of Rape                      37 of 47
FOOZLE::WHITE "Natural Woman"                        40 lines  27-MAR-1989 12:22
                     -< Your home is least safe from rape >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't have the numbers in front of me (but possibly
    could retrieve them).  From memory, some information from
    a presentation by the Worcester Rape Crisis Center:
    
    The most likely place for a woman to be raped is in her 
    own home.  Most rapists decide ahead of time that they
    are going to rape a particular woman whom they know at
    least by sight.  The rape encounter is not usually the
    first encounter, although the previous meeting may just
    be that he spoke to her in the street.

    So much for provocative clothes or being in the combat
    zone as the immediate stimulus.
    
    I believe that most muggers go out to rob any convenient
    person, and therefore being in the wrong place and flashing
    money and jewelry may incite robbery.  This is a personal
    opinion, not part of the Rape Crisis Center information.
    
    Most rapists do not believe that they have done anything
    wrong.  They invent reasons why "she asked for it", and
    some are pretty irrational, as Ann noted.  Most rapists
    will continue raping until they reach the age of about
    57.  
    
    Date rapes are a different situation, and have not been
    studied in depth yet.
    
    None os these facts apply to the very small percentage
    of rapists who are also serial killers.  These men do
    cruise for likely victims.  Again, their selection
    criteria can be odd.  They may select women with long 
    black hair, a certain age, etc.  The fact that these 
    patterns exist is how police track them down.  If you 
    don't fit the pattern you are probably safe.
    
    Pat
    

    
================================================================================
Note 99.38                    Side Effects of Rape                      38 of 47
WMOIS::B_REINKE "If you are a dreamer, come in.."    39 lines  27-MAR-1989 21:38
               -< on victims ....from a moderator point of view >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mark,
    
    I know that you and others who have answered this note mean
    no offense by what you say and are only talking from the
    point of view of what seems reasonable and practical.
    
    However, to talk of blame or guilt and all, to those who have
    been raped (even if only in the sense of reducing their risk)
    comes close to 'talking of rope in the houses of the hanged.'
    
    Tho I have been fortunate to never have had such an experience,
    I have talked to women who have been raped and read their stories
    and read articles about women who have suffered such attacks.
    
    One of the biggest problems that women have with dealing with
    rape is guilt. This is one reason that the crime is still so
    under reported. Many many women who have been sexually attacked
    flagellate themselves trying to figure out what they did to
    cause this terrible thing to happend to them. Even tho they
    did absolutely nothing.
    
    I recall something that happened when I was a teenager. A woman
    in my town was raped. She was so devistated by the experience that
    she committed suicide by parking her car on a train track. This
    is the mental state that affects a lot of women after such an
    experience. Even years later, after healing has occured, remarks
    implying that women are guilty in such an experience can bring
    back these kinds of feelings in a victim.
    
    I would like to ask anyone who has not been the victim of a sexual
    attack or been close to someone who has to be very very careful
    how you talk about it, especially in a public notes file where
    many people come to read and look for information on subjects
    that trouble them.
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie J
    co mod

    Moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.39                    Side Effects of Rape                      39 of 47
PRYDE::ERVIN "Roots & Wings..."                      16 lines  28-MAR-1989 11:10
                         -< Wow! I'm now enlightened! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .36
    
    "Blame is being placed on the victim ONLY for placing themselves
    at a higher risk of victimization..."  "What is being claimed is
    that people can influence their fate in many cases, and to ignore
    this fact is tantamount to stupidity."
    
    Well, I'm really glad that we have simple solutions to these nagging
    problems.  Imagine that.  All women have to do is avoid going out on
    a date with a man that she presumes to be nice, or going out
    shopping in broad daylight, or going out at night to visit a
    friend...no problem...I'm sure we can avoid these high risk activities
    and not stupidly fall into situations where we could become victims.   
    
    
    
================================================================================
Note 99.40                    Side Effects of Rape                      40 of 47
TRADE::SULLIVAN "Karen - 291-0008"                   37 lines  28-MAR-1989 11:42
                         -< standing under oak trees >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	I don't know, maybe I don't know how to get my meaning across, so
	I'll try one more time and try to keep it simple.

	1. Yes, people should take precautions for *known* dangers.

	2. However, we all know hindsight by those not involved is
	always better than forsight by those in the situation.  And
	it is totally unreasonable for someone not in a situation to
	pass judgement on what were reasonable precautions and whether
	blame should be placed on a victim for not taking those
	reasonable precautions.

	3. We don't know what causes an individual criminal to choose 
	a victim, it isn't a simple black and white criteria.

	Therefore:

	1.  It is *wrong* for people to ever talk about how certain
	actions of certain parties could be called "asking for it"
	given that there is no basis for those claims and that they
	are passing judgment on others when they blame victims.

	2.  Claiming that certain actions by certain people are
	"asking for it" help to spread prejudice.  For example,
	women who dress sexy (which is a judgment in itself) are
	"asking for" rape, which leads to the unspoken message that
	they aren't "good" women anyways so it's okay to rape them.

	...Karen

	p.s.  I think it's a very human reaction to question the
	circumstances of a crime.  Oh if only they hadn't been
	in that place...  However, there is a very fine line
	between that qustioning and laying blame.  I think we need
	to try very hard not to ask those questions of a victim in
	case it is perceived as laying blame (no matter how much
	we don't mean to).
================================================================================
Note 99.41                    Side Effects of Rape                      41 of 47
SSDEVO::YOUNGER "Smile when you feel like crying"    15 lines  28-MAR-1989 15:37
                         -< Myths make us feel safer >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering that rape happens to people from infancy through very old
    age, in their homes, on the streets, in offices, in shopping malls, and
    in all sorts of other places, no one is really safe. 
    
    If you view it as a totally random occurrence, it is very scary.
    However, if you view it as something that can be "asked for", and thus
    "prevented", it makes life seem a little safer, even if that safety is
    not real.  When a woman is raped, it is easier to say "she asked for it
    by dressing that way/being in that area at night" than to admit "It
    could have been me instead.  I was just lucky." Unfortunately for the
    victim, she buys into this "asked for it" line too, and spends her life
    beating herself up "I should have known better...I could have avoided
    it.", causing herself much grief over these myths. 
    
    Elizabeth
================================================================================
Note 99.42                    Side Effects of Rape                      42 of 47
BOLT::MINOW "Who will can the anchovies?"            11 lines  28-MAR-1989 17:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my (probably imperfect) memory of one of the earlier discussions of
Model Mugging that, in addition to teaching a woman her options when
she is attacked, the course also gave some pointers for avoiding attack.
Perhaps one of the Model Mugging graduates could elaborate further?

There was an article on rape in a recent New York Road Runner's Magazine
(written by one of their employees who had been raped while jogging).
Contact me if you'd like a xerox of the article.  It did have some
comments on avoidance.

Martin.

    moved from topic 99...
    
================================================================================
Note 99.43                    Side Effects of Rape                      43 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."                   22 lines  28-MAR-1989 17:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think the point is being taken out of proportion.  It is an
    undeniable fact that being in certain areas in certain times under
    certain conditions will increase the likelihood of assault.  If
    you want to deny that, present your case.  Otherwise, I'll take
    it that the point is accepted.
    
    Now then, it has never been claimed that this is all there is to
    it.  This is one aspect of a complex situation and I think we all
    have enough native intelligence to realize that.  The point made
    was not a solution or a myth or anything other than an observation.
    If you want to argue the complexities of the situation, there's
    nothing to stop you.  However, harping on the fact that the observation
    doesn't address the complexities of the situation is unwarranted,
    since it gives the observation more weight than it ever pretended
    to claim.  I suspect it's also unnecessary, given the above-mentioned
    native intelligence.
    
    It seems like we're creating an argument where there are no strong
    disagreements.  The debate is not so much "You're wrong" as "That's
    not all there is to it."  To my knowledge, no one has ever said
    "This is all there is to it."  Unless I'm mistaken, the arguments
    are being lodged against an imaginary premise.  So what's the point?
================================================================================
Note 99.44                    Side Effects of Rape                      44 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful"      7 lines  29-MAR-1989 07:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chelsea, 

While you're right about assault, I haven't seen anything to back up your
statement of assault as it applies to rape. My understanding, based on studies
quotes in this notesfile, is that women are raped by people they know, in
familiar environments.
	Mez
================================================================================
Note 99.45                    Side Effects of Rape                      45 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 13 lines  29-MAR-1989 11:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Chelsea- perfect wavelength and synchronization.

 Mez- I was addressing rapes other than date rape and rapes by a known assailant
where one's situation on the given night could not possibly have contributed in
any way to her assault. A woman sitting in her home who gets raped by an
attacker who enters with the intent of raping could not possibly have provoked
the rape unless she is an exhibitionist. Even then, the rape is not justified
(rape is never justified).

 So, if you want to pick me apart for making a statement that applies in a 
limited number of cases, do so. But please put it in context. Thank you.

 The Doctah
================================================================================
Note 99.46                    Side Effects of Rape                      46 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful"     10 lines  29-MAR-1989 15:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Mark; we are not talking about the same thing, nor are we talking to each
other, although we are in the same topic. Usually when I am talking to someone
I make it clear by using their name or note number.

> So, if you want to pick me apart for making a statement that applies in a 
>limited number of cases, do so. But please put it in context. Thank you.

Does this refer to me? Since I wasn't speaking directly to any of your notes,
I'm hoping it doesn't.
	Mez

    Moved from .99....consider it done, Pat...
    
    -Jody
    
================================================================================
Note 99.47                    Side Effects of Rape                      47 of 47
FOOZLE::WHITE "Natural Woman"                        25 lines  29-MAR-1989 19:34
                 -< Please keep this note for the base topic >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I have just read through all the replies in this note.  
    I am concerned that the entire March 1989 series of 
    replies are off the subject of the base note.
    
    Many notes go off the track.  In this case, I think that 
    all the replies that are not about side effects of rape
    should be moved to a new note.  The reason is that the 
    early replies were a very powerful series of personal 
    experiences.  They can be helpful to anyone who is having 
    rape side effects and is looking for support or comfort, 
    or just to not feel so alone.  I believe that notes like 
    these are re-read by those who need them.
   
    If someone was reading through the replies for that 
    reason, the recent side track about whether a person
    may be "asking for" rape would be a rude shock.  Debate
    about the possible negligence of victims doesn't belong
    in a note started for personal stories of the side effects
    of rape.
  
    Moderators, can all the recent replies be moved to 
    leave this note for side effects of rape?
    
    Pat
    

    Many women who are raped feel like:
    
    		* Maybe I shouldn't have worn that.
                  But I did so I must have subconsciously wanted it.
    
    		* Bad things don't happen to good people
    
    		* Filthy in a way a billion showers can't clean.
    
    		* Sex is not enjoyable
    
    		* Afraid of relationships w/men
    
    		* The big secret that has to be kept from the co-workers.
    		                                                                     
                * Moodswings, rage, tears, spaciness
    
    Kate

    From reading, observation and my own experience, it seems there
    are two core problems of sexual attraction
    
        1. Reality sanity checks disolve easily.  Namely, it's far
           easier to fantasize.  Mass consumerism reinforces this 
           enormously.
    
        2. Sexual ego rejection is painful.  Arguably, it represents
           life's biggest ego shock.  Some people can spend the 
           balance of their lifetime never recovering from some
           sexual rejection.
    
    Between these, it is easy for some men to get into a vicious circle
    of fantasizing and getting rejected.  If they cannot integrate the
    pain, they take it as psychological violence.   Then, if enough
    perceived "ego violence to me" goes unhealed over a long enough
    time, it makes sense that it could erupt in physical violence -
    rape.
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    Rape has even less to do with sex than you think.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ideally, I think that people should be able to wear whatever 
    they want without having to worry about the consequences, and I
    think that the final blame is always with the person who actually
    chooses to commit the crime.  As someone said before, it is a crime
    to rape or mug, it is not a crime to dress in sexy or expensive
    clothes.  I've always thought that the tendency to comment on the
    fact that rape victims may have been dressed like "sluts" or whatever,
    is an attempt to lessen the horror of the crime by rationalizing
    that "nice" women don't get raped.  The myth that "nice women" don't
    get raped is obviously one of the most upsetting aspects of getting
    raped,(after physical pain, violation and fear of being killed).
    
    I think that by constantly pointing out that women would be wise
    not to dress in clothes that are too "sexy" the myth that "nice women"
    don't get raped is being perpetuated, and the myth that "that slut
    in the black leather mini skirt was asking for it" is also being
    perpetuated.  Maybe some men get the message that women who dress
    a certain way are fair game.  I think the courts and the media have
    to get across the message that it isn't alright to rape anybody
    no matter how they were dressed.  In the past, and I'm not sure
    it's really changed, I've gotten the impression that it's almost
    a "crime" to accuse somebody of rape.  It's always been considered
    to be such a terrible thing to accuse someone of rape that the person
    doing the accusing had better be pretty sure they've been living
    a virtuous life and dressing the part, or they're in for more trouble
    than the rapist.  
    
    How can the message be gotten across to men and young boys growing
    up that they are not supposed to treat women dressed in "sexy" clothes
    or like "sluts" any worse than they treat women who dress in a virtuous
    manner?  Will this ever change?
    
    Obviously, when men rape old women or little kids they are not reacting
    to sexy clothes.  But in the cases where women are raped by men they
    know, are there any statistics that actually suggest that women
    who habitually dress in sexy or revealing clothes get raped more
    often than women who dress more conservatively?  Or does this only
    tend to come into play after the rape has occurred, as a way to
    blame the victim?
    
    The other day a male friend asked me why I don't wear "sexier clothes"?
     He said, "You could get away with dressing a lot sexier than you
    do."  He suggested that I would look good in shorter skirts and
    higher heels.  I said that the heels are just too uncomfortable
    and that I thought I was too old to wear shorter skirts.  He said
    that was precisely why I should to show I still could.  I realized
    that I'm afraid to dress that way.  I feel much more comfortable
    going about in the world looking like a conservative, virtuous lady.
     At least I don't look like I'm "asking for it." :-(
    
    Lorna
    

	Lorna, what a great reply.  It's says so much of what I've
	been trying to say.

	...Karen

    re:.13
    
    Rape very seldom has sex as its main objective.  Rape is generally
    about control, dominance, anger, woman-as-hated-object, to name
    a few objectives of the rapist.
    
    I remember reading somewhere once a statement made by a rapist.
    He went to an area that he knew only vaguely, waited until the *third*
    woman alone came onto the street from her home, and attacked her.
    He deliberately set the #3 as the goal; no matter the age, looks,
    whatever--if he could, he would have the 3rd woman as victim.  No
    sexual ego rejection there---just a terrifying control over the
    life of a woman who happened to be the 3d female to walk into his
    sight.  And that is just what he said.  It was the sense of power,
    of control over her life, any woman's life, that gave him the sexual
    "rush".  
    
    Rape is rape when the woman says "no".  Period.  *I don't care if
    she is stark naked on the kitchen floor, she has the right to change
    her mind.*  And when a man does not take "no" for an answer, and
    justifies it for whatever reason, he is raping not for sex, but
    for power, control, dominance.
    
    Marilyn
    
    
      

 	   	RAPE CRISIS TRAINING CURRICULUM


DATE		TOPIC

3 Apr - Mon	1.  Introduction to H.I.R.S. and Hotline Procedures,
6:30 - 10 PM	    "Rape Trauma Syndrome", Date Rape

17 Apr - Mon	2.  Incest and Child Victim/Psychology of the Offender
6:30 - 10 PM

24 Apr - Mon	3.  Medical Intervention
7 - 10 PM

1 May - Mon	4.  Police and Court Procedures
7 - 10 PM

10 May - Wed	5.  Rape Crisis Counseling Techniques
7 - 10 PM

15 May - Mon	6.  Rape Counseling - con't  Role Playing
7 - 10 PM

20 May - Sat	7.  Family Work/Special Groups (Ethics, Males), Community
10 AM - 4 PM	    Resources and Referral Work


To sign up for the above training and experience on the RAPE HOTLINE in
the greater Marlboro area, call Laura Morrall at the Health Information
Referral Service, Inc., 169 Pleasant Street, Marlboro, MA 01752, (508)
481-8290.  Contact Hour credits are offered for this training program.
It is open to both males and females and there are already both sexes
signed up for this training session.   

When you call to sign up, tell her Jacqui Gardner sent you!

justme....jacqui

p.s.  It's a great training course!  Full of information and a good 
      text book.  Go!  You won't regret it!

    re: clothing.
    
    I've never been a flashy dresser, but on occasion I sometimes dress
    downright dowdy, particularly when I know I'll be walking around the
    streets of a city, alone.  Of course, I didn't have any qualms when I
    was heavier, but now I've stopped wearing certain things...side-slit
    skirts, form-fitting T-shirts, and there's a turtleneck I love that I
    don't wear by itself anymore (I'm wearing it under a sweater today)
    because it elicited remarks and whistles... 
    
    When I'm walking outside in a city at night, particularly alone,
    I want to disappear.  I dont' want to be seen.  I want to melt into
    the woodwork.  I don't want to be noticed.  So I dress "safely".
    I know this is no cure.  I know there is no cure for the raping
    in this society, short of taking the crime more seriously and meting
    out just punishment to offenders the FIRST TIME.  
    

    -Jody
        

    I remember having a conversation with a friend many years ago about
    rape.  He said.."hey, if you can't prevent the rape, you should just
    enjoy it".  I then asked him what he would do if he were raped. 
    He just grinned, thinking that it wouldn't be that bad.  I then asked
    him...what if she had a gun to your head and said "you better
    be good or I'll blow your head off!"  Well, he paused a moment and
    realized that that wouldn't be very much fun.
    
    Basically, my reason for pointing this out to him was to emphasize
    that when women are raped, they are in a position of being physically
    harmed, not to mention psychologically harmed.  It isn't sex to women,
    it is an act of violence and degradation.  
    
    I think its about time men in this society began standing up for
    women that are being raped instead of thinking that she must have
    been asking for it.  Rape is an act of violence, not an act of
    manhood!  It could be your sister, wife, daughter, mother...being raped. 
    Would you say they were out there asking for it because they happened
    to be wearing clothes of a certain style?  I think not!  I think
    its about time that men/women in this society started to rally against
    rape!  It shouldn't be permitted in this society REGARDLESS of the 
    circumstances!
    
    Donna                         

    A cursory glance at some other files produce the following related
    topics:
    
    Womannotes-V1:
    	topic 189 - Date Rape
    	topic 645 - The Victim's Response To Rape
    
    Human_Relations:
    	topic 438 - How Do Men Handle Rape Victims
    
    Mennotes:
    	topic 308 - Rape Protection Devices
    
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: Distinctions Between Power and Sex 
    
    In the extreme of any appetite, doesn't it make sense that power
    and the appetite will mix.  If a person is frustrated enough from
    food (starving), water (thirst) or air (choking), they will get
    violent to get it.   Even though sex is only a pleasure appetite,
    it makes sense to me that a vicious circle of rejection, chronic
    teasing and low self-esteem can artificially make someone _just_as_
    frustrated_.  
    
    Why doesn't this make sense?
    
    Dave
    

    re:22
    
    David, It has been proven by studies that rape has nothing to do
    with sex. The drive to overpower is much stronger than the sex drive.
    
    Your theory seems to make sence but it just isn't the case. It's
    hard to figure out a twisted mind.
    
    Kate
    

	Because there are alternatives that do not involve abrogation
	of another persons rights?

	Because a need on the part of one parson does not create
	an obligation on the part of another person?


						Tom_K

    Do media images of women (such as pornography) make rape more likely?
    

    re: .20
    
    There's another tack you can try with men who try the "lie back
    and enjoy it" line.  That line presupposes (at least from a 
    heterosexual speaker) that their attacker would be a woman; try 
    asking the guy how he'd feel about it if the attacker were another 
    man (and one holding a gun or knife to his head to boot).  I've
    found that this notion can begin to convey some of the sense of
    horror a rape victim must feel.  
    
    Steve

>< Note 525.26 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >

>    Do media images of women (such as pornography) make rape more likely?
    
Yes, in as much that a lot of pornography includes images of violence
towards women.  A lot of music vidios do to.

    
    re:.21
    i suspect that ms. bobbitt did not intend this interpretation, but i am
    struck that in HUMAN relations there is a note concerning how MEN
    should handle rape victims and in MEN notes there is a note concerning
    rape *protection*. the discussions in WOMEN notes have a somewhat
    different tone, date rape and the *victim's* response. 
    
    to put it more bluntly, i can't help but read:
    
    HUMAN= MEN
    MEN and RAPE= protection
    
    and (need it be said?)
    
    WOMEN= victim
    
    

    <--(.29)
    
    And aren't you amazed, Joe, the way people will claim that there's
    really not a lot of verrrry subtle stuff going on in the world?
    
    						=maggie 

re: .29:
    i suspect that ms. bobbitt did not intend this interpretation, but i am
    struck that in HUMAN relations there is a note concerning how MEN
    should handle rape victims and in MEN notes there is a note concerning
    rape *protection*. the discussions in WOMEN notes have a somewhat
    different tone, date rape and the *victim's* response. 

If I remember previous discussions correctly, there have been replies
in previous rape discussions in Womannotes on rape protection and how
men should handle rape victims.  Since, in our society, wommen are
statistically at greater risk for rape than men, it seems quite reasonable
for date rape and victim's response to be discussed here.

If you feel these topics should also be discussed in Human Relations, why
don't you start a topic there?

Martin.

    
    I saw the rape news all over in the media.
    Since there is major percentage of unreported rape, I wonder
    how often it happen in this society.
    
    My daughter and son are going to summer camp,  it seems to be
    a good place the rape will happen.  Is the summer camp safe?
    I don't see any indication that those summer camp officer are taking
    action to prevent the rape crime.
    
    I know the rape victim suffer a lot physically and mentally, can
    the victim ask for compensation(read: money) from the criminal in
    civil suit? 

                       < Check Out the Camp >

    Re: .32

    I wrote the anonymous account in 99.9 of a male rape victim.

    (Why hide?)

    It happened in a summer camp. Summer camps provide 24 hour
    intimacy, often with little supervision. But camps vary widely in
    their security and operating procedures.

    Before making a decision, I would carefully interview the
    directors, and personally check out the camp thoroughly. Generally
    speaking, you want as many experienced counselors around as much
    as possible.

    What is the average age of the counselors? What sort of previous
    camp experience do they have? What is the counselor-to-camper
    ratio? How many counselors are on duty in the evenings and at
    night? Are the cabins locked? Do the counselors sleep in the
    cabin with the children? Etc.

    If you aren't satisfied with the answers, don't send your kids.

    Bruce

Moved by moderator
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 99.25  Side Effects of Rape, please put responses to notes in 525  25 of 26
AQUA::WAGMAN "QQSV"                                  43 lines   2-JUN-1989 18:16
                             -< Way to go, nancy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re:  .21

>   Finally, surprise that I can talk about this in a notes conference when
>   I have gone to great extremes to hide this from [others]...

Congratulations on having developed the strength to speak here, nancy.  I'm
sure your example has served to show other victims that it is possible to
recover psychologically.  Your writing has had more effect than you might
have imagined, by the way.  After many years of advocating banning handguns
and other firearms, I've begun to reconsider my position on the point, and
your writing has been a strong influence on my thoughts.  I've been parti-
cularly impressed by your decision to continue frequenting places that others
might consider too threatening.  I sympathize with your choice to take charge
of your own safety.  Brava.  (And please keep writing!)

With respect to

>   apprehension in knowing I will have to face my rapist as an "interested
>   party" in future parole hearings

please don't forget to ask for support from this community when that time
comes.

Re some of the other side effects you mentioned:

>   guilt about [promiscuity]

>   guilt about not being smart/strong/quick enough to stop attacker

>   guilt about being in a "relatively safe" but wrong place at wrong time

All of these are things that have been mentioned many times before by other
women in this file.  To my simplistic male eyes these guilts seem particularly
unfortunate; I wish that the attacker were the only one to feel guilty.  None-
theless, your experiences seem typical.  So my question:  to what extent is
society responsible for making rape victims feel guilty?  What can we do to
help relieve that guilt?  Can we, by working on people's attitudes, help
victims accept that they were not at fault?  And what can men do as friends/
lovers/spouses/relatives to help support women who have been victimized?

I would value responses from any women (signed or anonymous) on this subject.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 99.23  Side Effects of Rape, please put responses to notes in 525  23 of 26
HANNAH::OSMAN "see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240" 10 lines   2-JUN-1989 14:20
                         -< a brave lady, that Nancy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    Nancy, I think you're being incredibly brave and healthy to reveal
    all of this in a notes file.
    
    I'm glad I met you at that noter's luncheon so I have a little more
    sense of who the author is.
    
    It makes me respect you all the more...
    
    /Eric
================================================================================
Note 99.24  Side Effects of Rape, please put responses to notes in 525  24 of 26
RAINBO::LARUE "An easy day for a lady."               9 lines   2-JUN-1989 15:09
                           -< let's try this again >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nancy, it was very courageous of you to write all that and I can relate
    to every item on your list.  It's been 23 years for me not 3.  It took
    19 years for me to even tell anyone what happened to me.  Abstract
    discussions about rape are not possible for me.  Rape is a personal,
    invasive, violent horror show.  The results are a gift that keep on
    giving.  I can't be kind, I can't be objective.  I can't forgive it or
    the man.
    
    Dondi

re: 525.34 (One of Dick Wagman's questions in response to 99.29)

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| And what can men do as friends/lovers/spouses/relatives to help support|
| women who have been victimized?                                        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Men as friends
--------------
My closest friend at the time of The Incident happened to be male.  His
reaction was to simply spend as much time with me as possible.  He studied
with me, ate with me, slept (literally) with me, held me when I cried or
woke up from a nightmare hitting him.  When he couldn't be with me, he made
sure someone else was.  He was an excellent listener, never asking too many
direct questions but always subtly challenging any absurd statement I made
with a passive maybe-it's-not-like-that observation.  Later, he told me he
was worried I would do something to harm myself.  He probably saved my
life.

Three years later, I am a transplant in a different place with different
and relatively new men friends.  Till most recently, none of my men friends
even knew.  The one that now does know asked me some very tough questions
about my feelings that I could not answer logically...which was slightly
startling to me.  But I am tough now, and can handle any question without
being hurt.  So maybe I am ready to start thinking about what happened so I
can eventually sleep normally.

Timing is important.  One year ago I would not have considered talking to
any male friend about this.  Don't press the issue if she is not somehow
indicating a need to talk about it.   If she does seem to need to talk, put
on a listening cap.  Reword your advice in the form of a question, because
she might be more inclined to accept conclusions she has reasoned out in
her mind instead of ones that you have thought through in yours.


Men as Lovers
-------------
First thought that comes to mind:  Too bad they can't be mind readers.

Knowing this isn't possible, and knowing men justifiably get tired of
either having to be mind readers or suddenly being abandoned, rejected, and
left in a state of confusion as to what they did wrong, I still find it
tough to discuss things I would be averse to doing because of The Incident.

Maybe a discussion could take place outside of the bedroom, but while
sharing an intimate moment together.  Ask her specific questions like
"Would it bother you if I did ....", so that the only thing she'll have to
say is either yes or no.  And in order to get the most honest response,
phrase your question so that there is no hint as to whether this is
something you really want to do or not.

When in bed, be aware of a quick mood change or a sudden resistance when
there was none before that might indicate something is feeling wrong.  Be
cautious with expressing sexual assertiveness, especially if it is of a
nature you have never expressed before.

Of course, when making love to someone who's most recent sexual experience
was a violent one, it is extremely important to be sincerely gentle and
take things very slowly.  I've read that men who make love to a woman the
first time after her rape find it quite exciting, as though they were
making love to a virgin.


Men as Relatives
----------------

I think men who are relatives can potentially be the most helpful of all,
dependent on a close relationship existing before the rape occurred.  This
especially applies to brothers.  You grew up with her and could know better
than any other person how she is likely to react to this experience.
Strong guidance might be what is needed immediately following the incident.

I know that if my brother had been around he would've been the first person
I would have called.  He would've known exactly what to do and say.  My
father, on the other hand, is really almost 2 generations before me (my mom
and dad were about 42 when they had me).  I am positive I could never talk
to him about this experience in any helpful manner.


Men as Spouses
--------------

I will punt on this one...

I guess a combination of Men as Friends and Men as Lovers from above ... if
spouse = friend + lover ...


Hope this helps.
                                                       nancy b.

    I'd like to respond to this from the perspective of a man who dated a
    woman who was a victim of rape. Our relationship lasted several years,
    and I feel its decline and eventual demise was related to her rape.
    
    She went to the outdoor movies with an older guy, one who was heading
    out to the armed services the next day. They were making out, when he
    placed his hand under her shirt. She told him no and pushed his hand
    away. He said "I'm going to the army tomorrow, and we're going to have
    a going away party tonight." He then proceeded to rape her. She had
    been a virgin before this.
    
    Needless to say she was quite emotionally distraught. This had happened
    during her senior year in high school. I met her in college. Our
    relationship began as friends, but gradually worked it's way into
    romance.
    
    It did not take too long before I noticed that she acted somewhat
    strange in bed. Like something was holding her back. She explained
    through tears that we could never make love, and that she could not
    tell me why. I tried to be as supportive as I could, figuring something
    must have happened to her. Eventually it came out that she was a rape
    victim. We talked about it whenever she wanted to. I tried to listen
    and soothe her. She said it really helped.
    
    Eventually, we were able to work through her fears. Some things still
    did (and I imagine still do) bother her. She had a feeling of
    helplessness since he told her that she couldn't come after him because
    he was in the military- police had no jurisdiction. Second, she
    developed a sleeping disorder. She was impossible to wake up. This
    eventually caused her schoolwork to suffer. She'd sleep till 1 in the
    afternoon, then stay up the next night till very late, 'cuz she wasn't
    tired.
    
    It all became too much, and eventually we parted ways. 
    
    It is very difficult from a guys perspective to "do the right thing."
    That was something I always tried to do, but often "the right thing to
    do" was not apparent. Our dialogues gave me considerable insight into
    her feelings and her problems with her attack, but obviously it is
    still only second hand information. I find myself able to empathise
    with other victims of rape; I have a tenderness in my heart for them. I
    know that the ordeal that they must go through is absolutely horrible.
    This is one of the reasons I'd like to see increased penalties for rape
    and other assaults.
    
    Thank you, Nancy, for sharing your harrowing experience. Since the
    number of rape victims is so high, there is also a correspondingly high
    number of men who must deal with their lovers, sisters or friends that
    have been subjected to sexual assault. Reading your notes helps me to
    understand HOW I can help in the future, though I hope I never have a
    need for this information. I only wish I read this stuff before I
    needed it.
    
    The Doctah

Since I have received strong objections via email from now more than one
male =wn=er concerning what I wrote in 667.9 about men and rape, I think
I should clarify what I said there in this note publicly, in case there
are other men who were offended by what I said.

I am also requesting that if you take offense or strongly disagree with
something I say in =wn=, please voice your opinions here in =wn=, rather
than to me personally via email.   This way I will only have to defend
my statements in one place, instead of to multiple people via email
where redundancy is likely to occur.  That has become tiring.

But please believe me when I say that I am not too emotionally delicate
to have my beliefs on rape questioned by male =wn=ers.  Having to think
through my feelings and resulting beliefs on the subject will hopefully
allow me to understand and overcome some of the "side effects" I am
experiencing now. 

In 667.9, "Non-Coercive Romance", I stated:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
>    been an education.  I never thought myself capable of being
>    a rapist to begin with, but now I'm thoroughly immunized.

Well, I've deleted and rewritten most of my immediate reactions to
that sentence because I was afraid of sounding like I was "male bashing"
(not wanting to give fuel to a debate going on in another topic.)

You are not "thoroughly immunized" unless it is no longer structurally
possible for you to rape a woman.  I suspect this is not the case.

Rape is a means by which any man can keep any woman in a state of fear.

You *are* capable of rape.

A more factual statement would be that you are less likely to rape
because of your heightened awareness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please, do not be offended by an irrefutable fact resulting from your
(or any typical man's) biological structure and physical strength.

I did *not* mean to imply that *every* man should be "viewed" as a
potential rapist by a woman.  I do not think that would be very healthy
at all.  Nor did I mean to make men who opt not to rape feel guilty or
criminal by stating that any man is capable of rape.

I apologize for causing any hurt feelings among the men of =wn=, but I
still believe what I said is true (and you are welcome to try to change
my mind about that in =wn=.)

                                                  nancy b

    
                          <** Moderator Response **>

    <<< Note 525.39 by AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust..." >>>

�     [...]there used to be some _really_ annoying annoying replies
�     that were termed "Trashnotes" as their main purpose seemed to be
�     to de-rail any serious discussions among women and generally to
�     bash feminists.  Due to the subsequent fuss - which resulted in
�     one of the offensive males being terminated - many male noters
�     will use mail as a vehicle to communicate their attitudes.
    
    
    Steve, nobody has ever been fired for his activity in this file.  You
    know that as well as I do.  Give it a rest?  Please?
    
    						=maggie
    
    

    To the co-mods:  I feel this discussion is something of a tangent
    and would agree with having it moved if you all feel that's the
    best way to go.

    re: .39
    
    � nobody has ever explained the difference in mindset between some
    � male who will rape a women because he can get away with it and
    � a male noter who will use notes and mail to attempt to interact
    � with women who do not welcome their electronic intrusions. 
    
    It appears to be fairly widely accepted that rape, in the mind
    of the rapist, has more to do with power and domination than with
    with sex.  While theories on the difference of "mindset" may (or
    may not) abound, it seems to me that one clear *physical* difference 
    between rape and "intrusive" use of MAIL (or NOTES) is that neither 
    party in an electronic interchange has intrinsic power over the other.
    Anyone, female or male, has equal ability to send unwanted messages.
    
    Furthermore, the element of anonymity is removed - if I send an
    intrusive message (junk e-MAIL?  junky MAIL?), it's with the explicit
    understanding that I can't "get away with it" in the way an anonymous
    rapist does.  My unwanted message is accompanied by my electronic
    name and address and I'm therefore willing to have my actions become
    public knowledge.
    
    Finally, as with perhaps all crime, it's a matter of degree.  I
    have, on occasion, made something of a nuisance of myself to a woman
    who didn't want my attentions, but the thought of sex by force was,
    in all instances, repugnant to the point of being "unthinkable".
    
    Like most people I know, I've had thoughts of wreaking mayhem of
    various degrees on individuals (occasionally I've had those thoughts
    while reading NOTES. . .), but I decline to act out those thoughts.
    I've said unkind words from time to time, but I've nearly always
    refrained from physical violence because I, in agreement with the
    laws of most states, recognize that in externalizing my feeelings,
    the matter of degree is of paramount importance.
    
    Steve
    

    RE: .42 by SIETTG::HETRICK "Potential Rapist"
    
    Brian, I don't think your personal is funny, and I think it is 
    inappropriate. Rape should never be made a joke of, in any context.
    I suspect you didn't intend to suggest that rape is a joke,
    but I also feel sure that you have no idea of the impact
    of that personal name on a woman: it's very scary.
    
    While I don't agree with Nancy either when she says that every
    man is a potential rapist, I understand that, having been 
    raped, she might feel that way. I was mugged once, and for
    a long time afterwards every person who walked down the street
    to me was a potential mugger.
    
    On another issue, I sometimes wonder if this notes file should be
    for women only. I recently read a note in Mennotes in which a
    man who was very distressed wrote about an infertility problem,
    and other men actually joked about his condition in the replies.
    I wanted to say something about this but decided not to. I decided
    not to because that file is a men's forum. I hoped some man would
    notice the same thing; it might be more effective for the men
    involved to hear that message from another man. I can always use
    mail to respond to the original note. After all, we have the Human
    Relations file in which to discuss the many issues that affect
    both men and women. 
    
    Eileen
    

    
    Just my 2 cents:
    
    When I read Nancy's note saying every man is a potential rapist,
    in response to Keith's (?) statement that he was "immunized", I
    didn't think she was saying we should be afraid of all men.
    
    I got the impression she was responding to what seemed like a rather
    naive comment. I think all people should be aware of their potential
    to become something they don't see in themselves right away. If
    you decide that you are "immune" to something, you stop watching
    out for it. All I thought Nancy was saying was, "Be aware."
    
    BTW, Nancy, thank you for sharing such personal and painful memories
    with us.
    
    Roberta
                                                        

    This particular essay may be underappreciated by some readers ;-).

    In the last 6 months I have addressed this topic with six or 
    seven email correspondents.  One of them contacted me yesterday 
    suggesting that I respond here...so I've gone to my mail archives 
    and pulled together the following musings on the topic.  It is 
    not directed to anybody in particular...except me.  These are my 
    rules for *me*.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    =wn=
    
    This is a special place.  This place has history.  I respect that.

    Having participated here and in many other conferences, I've been
    speculating upon them; how notesfiles evolve, how conferences' rules 
    and moderators and communities and individuals and topics interact 
    to create each conference's own unique feel, its own culture.  And 
    how we recognize that as individuals of the community, we can be 
    active in guiding that cultural evolution by the nature of our 
    participation; in defending viewpoints that are unfairly attacked,
    in complimenting the person who presents a difficult insight with 
    skill, we can nurture the climate we desire, and evolve towards a 
    supportive community.

    My perspective is that when I see things of value in the file, I 
    try to offer support to the person who placed it there...I try to 
    reinforce the kind of noting that I value.  It feels then that I am 
    not so much reacting when my hot buttons get pushed (though I do 
    that too) as I am supporting the development of the community in 
    directions that appeal to *my* interests and desires.
    
    Supporting a woman when she says things that are hard for men to 
    hear expressed is *important* because she should know that the 
    message is recognizable, and understandable from this side of the 
    gender gap, even if that comprehension happens infrequently...or 
    even if it causes some men to feel pain.  Here, my politics are 
    showing.  I really do think that encouraging the expression of 
    women's feeling even at the expense of some male readers is the 
    right, VoD thing to do.  The goal, of course, is not to hurt men.  
    The goal is to support individuals as they teach themselves to 
    understand and live with the knowledge of their feelings.
    
    When I see something like "All men are capable of rape", I could 
    feel hurt...but I can also feel, "whoa, what kind of experiences 
    does a woman have to go through to be capable of thinking and saying 
    that!"  When I feel that, I recognize that my first feeling pales 
    beside the enormity of the second.  I learn, for those few fleeting 
    moments of empathy, that a woman who has been raped might never look 
    at men in quite the same way again.  And for this knowledge, which, 
    sorrowfully, teaches me more about life than I knew before...I can 
    put aside the pain her statement caused.  Other men do this, too.  
    Many of us recognize that here in =wn=, those individuals with the 
    first call on our empathy are women.  On the other hand, my brothers 
    who can't quite see the value (from my own particular set of values, 
    I know) may just sometimes have to do without my support, when a 
    woman's self-expression causes them pain.  That's my choice.
    
    =WN= has had a varied assortment of responses to male criticism.  
    In my own rendition of history, male criticism here is often 
    recognizable as just a reaction to that noter's ox getting gored.  
    It is not generally tolerated real well, which is perhaps unfor-
    tunate...for the following reasons.  I don't mind watching when 
    some guy with his foot in his mouth and/or his attitudes in the 
    dark ages gets crisped.  But so many times a male noter will get 
    flamed for revealing an "attitude" by using a common turn-of-
    phrase that isn't acceptable in womannotes.  A *very* high price 
    is exacted here from men who are sloppy with the language.  This 
    has the following unfortunate result:
    
    Men who have learned to ignore the heat and stay with the file 
    have also learned how not to attract the heat.  Male criticism 
    in =wn= will seldom be as outspoken as in most other notesfiles.  
    (I don't mind that at all; its a good place to practice one's 
    written sensitivity.)  The downside is that the upset men will 
    often find their relief/need_to_respond to whatever upsets them 
    in =wn= via email...taking their battles private, to a one-on-one 
    situation.  In such circumstances, I consider that "antagonistic" 
    because the initial expression in =wn= is deemed to be "supportive" 
    context, and a person who enters something which the community 
    supports publicly shouldn't necessarily have to turn around and 
    defend herself privately for revealing something in the supportive 
    space.  My concern here is that, as Nancy's experience related in
    525.38 bears witness, male readers have no hesitation about taking 
    their beefs to mail.  To me, that has the appearance of a picked
    fight...refusing to address the issues in the public forum where
    they were raised.
    
    Am I far enough out on a limb yet?  Let me carry on just a bit 
    further...
    
    My response, then, if/when I see notes that might draw private 
    flames, yet that correspond to my values as descibed above, is to 
    support the noter privately.  Reference my previous comments on
    the evolution of the file; I express my appreciation for noters
    I'd like to see more of, when I can find sufficient sensitivity
    within myself to dare address issues which cause pain.  My hope
    is that such support counterbalances the email hostility which
    often accompanies such fine noting.
    
    The picked fight aspect of some private email still disturbs me,
    though, and I have a suggestion for individuals who may find 
    themselves in such a position.  Were I subject to antagonistic 
    mail, I might politely respond that I would prefer to discuss 
    this publicly where it originated, and invite the writer to 
    repeat the criticism in the file if I were to be expected to 
    respond.  I think this would work great to get any truly antag-
    onistic people off of one's back, while permitting people who 
    truly desired a dialogue, or to exchange views, a chance to 
    practice their written sensitivity (putting one's views up for 
    the community to see them often teaches one restraint.)
    
    DougO

    Thankyou Doug for you long and thoughtful note.
    
    May I also add as a moderator, that *anyone*, who feels that they
    have been subjected to mail that they find harassing or objectionable,
    feel free to contact the moderators. As has been mentioned in other
    places in this file, we strongly discourage anyone from engaging
    in harassing behavior by mail and will do what we can to assist
    someone who is having a problem with this sort of situation.
    
    Bonnie

re: .41 (Steve "Barking Spider Industries" Mallett)
---------------------------------------------------
    
>    To the co-mods:  I feel this discussion is something of a tangent

Probably... I wasn't sure where to put my reply addressed to men =wn=ers.
It was kind of a processing topic, but not really...It kind of relates to
this topic, though less so since the title was changed...And I bet there's
a topic about men in =wn= that it could belong to also...   I knew there
wouldn't be a moderator in her office at the time I entered the note, and
I wanted to enter it before I received any more email. 


re: .42  (Brian "Potential Rapist" Hetrick)
-------------------------------------------

>     case, but I freely admit the potential is there -- I have all the
>     necessary functional parts.

THANK YOU.  I was quite psyched to see that a male =wn=er understood what 
I said.

And I admit to being mildly amused by your choice of personal name for that
reply...I interpreted that as a clever way of underlining what you said 
in your reply.  


re: .43 (Eileen Dunne)
----------------------
    
>    While I don't agree with Nancy either when she says that every
>    man is a potential rapist, I understand that, having been 
>    raped, she might feel that way. I was mugged once, and for
>    a long time afterwards every person who walked down the street
>    to me was a potential mugger.
    
I do *not* look at every man and think "rapist" or "potential rapist",
now or ever.  Makes me shudder to think of how continually upset I
would be if that were the case.  I am really a generally happy person
who enjoys life (and men) immensely and, until recently, did not 
*consciously* think often about rape and rapists. 

My main problem (side effect) is that I can't sleep normally unless I
am drugged, completely exhausted, or sleeping with someone.  Shutting
my consciousness off to the subject was not helping my unconscious state,
so I'm experimenting with thinking about it....Nevertheless, I still do
not look at every man I encounter and think, "rapist."


.46  (Roberta Piket)
--------------------
    
>     All I thought Nancy was saying was, "Be aware."

   EXACTLY.
 
>    I think all people should be aware of their potential
>    to become something they don't see in themselves right away. If
>    you decide that you are "immune" to something, you stop watching
>    out for it.
 
Good observation and insight.

Mainly, I said what I said, because I wish people would stop thinking of
men who rape as diseased, sick, wildly deranged types that could easily be
recognized and avoided.

Most men are physically capable of raping.  A lot of men have sexual intercourse
with women with some degree of frequency.  Most of these men choose not to 
(use physical or verbal coercion to get sex) / rape.         ^^^^^^
But unfortunately, men that appear otherwise normal can change their mind on
this; a timely for-instance has been provided by Ann Johnston in topic 99.


re: .47  (Doug Olson)       
---------------------

Awesome.

Thank you for taking the time to assemble your writings and mails into an 
essay that made a lot of sense to me.


>    My hope
>    is that such support counterbalances the email hostility which
>    often accompanies such fine noting.
 
Yes, it does.  I would substitute "counterbalances" with "far outweighs" 
in the above sentence for what I am experiencing.


re: .48  (Bonnie Reinke)
------------------------

Nothing I have experienced with respect to =wn= comes close to anything 
I would call harassment.  

But thanks for the reminder that you are there if needed...

							    nancy b.

    I have been following the debate concerning what nancy wrote in
    667.9 for a few times, and I think it's time to put in my reaction
    as the base note author.
    
    I was NOT offended or bothered by
    
    >	You *are* capable of rape
    
    for a couple different reasons.  First of all, I may have sounded
    as though I meant "I could never rape anyone, so I don't have to
    worry about it, it's not my problem."  What I MEANT was, "I don't
    think I'll ever rape anyone because I WILL think about and respect
    the other person's feelings, and I wouldn't want to hurt ANYONE
    in that way regardless of what they might have done to me.  Secondly,
    nancy (or anyone who doesn't know me that well, or that matter)
    can not know whether I would do such a thing, and in a society where
    1 in 3 women are raped I can accept a healthy caution as long as
    it does not turn into paranoia.
    
    >	Rape is a means by which any man can keep a woman in a state
    >	of fear.
    
    This statement bothered me somewhat more.  I felt that it implicated
    me more personally -- because it seemed to suggest that if a woman
    is afraid of me, then I, personally am using it to keep it that
    way.  I feel that SOME men who use rape to try to control women
    keep many women in a state of fear which I must recognize and accept
    and try to alleviate, but for which I am not PERSONALLY responsible
    and for which I will not BECOME responsible if I avoid engaging
    in behaviour that is perceived as coercive.
    
    I accept and understand, nancy, if your statements reflect your
    feelings of anger.  I only ask that you also try to understand mine
    if/when you react to this response.
    
    				-Keith

    re: .49 (the part that was re: .41, which was re: .39, which
    has since been deleted but was re:. . .uh. . .well, you get the idea)
    
    I'm sorry I wasn't a bit more specific, Nancy.  What I meant by
    "this discussion" was my reply (.41) to Steve Thompson's (.39,
    now deleted) in which he questioned the difference in "mindset"
    between a rapist and an individual using MAIL and/or NOTES intrusively.
    It seemed to me at the time that such a discussion, while valid,
    was out of place.  To tell the truth, though, I was guilty of having 
    lost the beat - I was focusing on this note's title and thinking that 
    the discussion here was about the side effects of rape.  In re-reading 
    Jody's base note, I'm realized I goofed, so I guess I take back what 
    I said about .39/.41 being a tangent.
    
    Steve

    I already mentioned this in 667, but I agree totally with what
    Nancy was trying to say (at least, with what I thought Nancy was
    trying to say), and I didn't feel the least bit offended by it,
    as a man or as a human being.
    
    For reasons that I mentioned in that previous note, I think men
    *are* "potential rapists" *without realizing it*.
    
    There are some incidents from my past (as perpetrator, not victim)
    that bother me, because I simply don't know where they fall along
    that spectrum that runs from persuasion to rape (well, they *weren't*
    forcible rape, but as I said in the other note, what one woman sees
    as persuasion, another can see as rape). *That bothers the HELL
    out of me.*  I know that my intentions weren't malevolent, but it
    doesn't make me feel any less guilty.
    
    --- jerry

    I don't know where to begin.  I was raped.  Twice.  In one of the
    cases there was no question in my mind that the man involved was
    demented.  The other was a case of date rape.
    
    We all walk a fine line in our lives, and I applaud all who are
    willing to look at so terrible a side of aggression and see whether
    the seeds can exist.
    
    I do not distrust men as a class.  But, after twelve years, I still
    have extreme anxiety when face-to-face with an angry man.  I expect
    it'll take some time to believe in my heart, as I know in my mind,
    that all anger does not come out in the form of abuse either physical,
    mental, emotional, sexual...
    
    To look at the potential for rape is to look at the potential for
    any other kind of abuse, I think.
    
    And we are all potentially abusive.
    
    Cat
    

    re .53 >and we are all potentially abusive.
    
    You're right, Cat. And it's extra easy to be abusive in an
    area where one has an obvious advantage. Superior strength
    might make one more likely to be physically abusive, a 
    faster wit might make one verbally abusive, etc...
    
    You have to trust others not to abuse an advantage they
    may have over you. And not use your own advantages in
    an abusive manner.
    
    Dana

The previous discussion of viewing men as potential rapists educed a
conception of women I have which I would not have otherwise been aware
of...

I am much more likely to look at a woman and think "easy victim" than I
am to look at a man and think "potential rapist".  I look at a woman and
think "easy victim" (relative to other women) because of her slight
build, her thinness, or her lack of much muscular development.  I look
at *all* women as "easy victims" relative to men.  I was very frustrated
to catch myself focusing on the victim instead of the perpetrator, as do
too many others in society.  This is twisted!

Or is it?  Is it just a woman's reality to be a victim of violence?  If
we could accept that we [women] are inevitable victims, wouldn't it be
easier to handle the violence when it occurred?

Men by design will always be able to perpetrate violence against women.
For mostly three reasons: 1)they are stronger, 2)they have greater
strength, 3)their strength is superior.  Men are fit for life.  They are
faster, more powerful.  They don't bleed every month.  They typically
don't need to go to a male-equivalent of a gynecologist at least once a
year.  Men are socialized to be tough, aggressive; to be able to take
control.

Women, by design and evolution, are natural victims.  Women are weaker
and slower.  Women need gynecologists.  Women are treated as objects.
Women are looked upon as possessions.  Women are subjects in violent
pornography.  Women need to be protected.  Women are socialized to be
quiet, demure, soft-spoken, to let the man take control.  Women are
supposed to count on others for protection.

Because we are natural victims......

        we must become instinctive survivors.

                                                       nancy b.

    Re .55: What a horrible image...
    
    If you don't mind, I'll continue to think of myself - and most women -
    as sensible, resilient, capable, and tough. Heck, "fragile" is not the
    word for bodies designed for childbearing!
    
    This is not to say there aren't a lot of real problems out there, but I
    prefer not to view the world as consisting mostly of attackers and
    victims. (Admittedly, if I had been a victim of a serious attack, my
    views might change; as it is, the only time I was ever physically
    attacked was a relatively mild mugging from some teenage girls when I
    was about 12...)
    
    -b

    RE .55
    
    Your reply evoked in me an understanding of bitterness and fear.
    I think that there are certain natural attributes which cannot be
    changed, but ther are many other factors which CAN be changed.
    
    Men ARE physically stronger, on the average, in terms of brute
    force over a short period of time.  Women are stronger in terms
    of endurance;  this is useful to carry a child but unfortunately
    will not help much in fighting off an attack.  Women do bleed every
    month,  but they did survive fine long before gynecology.
    
    But as far as the rest goes, IT CAN BE CHANGED!!!  The fact that
    women are treated as objects, seen as possessions, subjects in violent
    pornography -- is NOT an unchangeable given.  Surely, it is incredibly
    difficult to change an entire culture, but DON'T GIVE UP!!! Women's
    rights have come to be better recognized over the last couple of
    centuries (voting, right to OWN property instead of BEING property,
    etc.).  And no I'm not saying, "chill out, you're doing okay" --
    I'm saying KEEP FIGHTING to move in the same direction!  It is an
    unfortunate fact that since women stand to gain more from change,
    women will have to make more of the effort -- but some of us guys
    are ready do our part in letter writing, voting, and day-to-day
    interaction with other people.  And if some women are socialized
    to be "passive" -- well, you can't change "other women":  people
    change themselves.  But you can (surely do) present a "positive
    role model" by refusing to be quiet, demure, etc. -- and showing
    that it WORKS.
    
    Your statement, "Women are supposed to count on others for protection,"
    set off some thinking.  There are a lot of romantic gestures (offering
    a coat when it's chilly, for example) that are based on this.  Bu
    I'm sure the woman could survive just FINE without the coat.  What's
    interesting is... in our society, the woman (is socialized to) enjoy
    being "protected" in this way and the man (is socialized to) enjoy
    "protecting" the woman.  Perhaps this is putting the cart before
    the horse, but... maybe trying to use romantic gestures that do
    NOT imply "protection" of this type would be a move in the right
    direction.  Just an idea to toss in the wind...
    
    Regarding what I said a couple replies back in the discussion of
    "potential rapists":  I noted that as a man, I had feelings about
    being labeled a potential rapist.  I also wanted to put that in
    a context:  since the issue of rape (in the case of rapes of women
    by men) has infinitely greater effects on women than on men, I feel
    it to be normal that women's feelings be stronger then men's.  I
    want to recognize, therefore, that (IMHO) women's consideration
    of men's feelings about the issue is important, but not to the extent
    that it prevents women from dealing with it:  your (generic) feelings
    of fear need more attention than my feelings of being held responsible
    for something I didn't do.
    
    Don't resign yourself.  When I was travelling alone in the Scandinavian
    countries, I met young Scandinavian women who were also travelling
    alone.  They did not feel afraid to hitchhike alone in their own
    countries.  And the Scandinavian cultures are fairly close to Western
    culture.  The U.S. is still quite a ways behind, but -- I refuse
    to accept that the treatment of women in our culture is an immutable
    tenet of nature;  it is an obsolete trapping of Western civilization
    which must me gnawed at until it is destroyed.
                                                    

      I believe it's an undeniable fact that until just the last couple
      hundred (and maybe not that much) years any sign of weakness was
      cause to get you either cast out or killed by your tribe. Those
      with mental or physical handicaps were disposed of or left as
      beggers. Women being smaller and weaker were just lower in the
      pecking order than men so they could be kept and used or discarded
      as seemed convienient. I suppose as long as they kept having
      healthy children and grew the veggies they were considered worth
      keeping. Any female that wasn't yours was probably fair game for
      rape and there was always a supply of younger ones to replace the
      ones lost in childbirth. And hey, if your tribe ran out of women
      you just raided your neighbor's and took his. liesl

RE: .57:
>    Don't resign yourself.  When I was travelling alone in the Scandinavian
>    countries, I met young Scandinavian women who were also travelling
>    alone.  They did not feel afraid to hitchhike alone in their own
>    countries.  And the Scandinavian cultures are fairly close to Western
>    culture.  The U.S. is still quite a ways behind, but -- I refuse
>    to accept that the treatment of women in our culture is an immutable
>    tenet of nature;  it is an obsolete trapping of Western civilization
>    which must me gnawed at until it is destroyed.

Interesting, when I was travelling in Europe alone I was molested twice. Both
times were on late night trains. The first time I was in Sweden going to
    Norway, then second time was in Spain. So much for Scandinavian
    countries being so safe!                               

re: .56 (Beth Rust)

>    Re .55: What a horrible image...

     Yes, it is.
    
>    If you don't mind, I'll continue to think of myself - and most women -
 
     No, I don't mind at all how you continue to think of yourself and most
     women.  

     I was *asking* the following: 

                  if: we believe x, 
                then: when y occurs, we understand, because y = f(x)

                where x = women are natural victims of violence because of...
                      y = violence
                   
                In other words, having violence inflicted on us is just 
                ... a function of being a woman.

>   ...I'll continue to think of myself - and most women - as sensible, 

    Yes.

>   resilient, 

    Yes.

>   capable, 

    Yes.

>   and tough. 

    Mentally? Yes.   
    Physically? Relative to men?    Don't kid yourself.


>   Heck, "fragile" is not the word for bodies designed for childbearing!
    
    Funny you mentioned childbearing, Beth...I came very close to including
    that in my list of what makes women more susceptible to violence.
    While it is true that we must be internally strong to bear a child, from 
    what I've observed, the entire experience puts women in a weakened state 
    physically to the external world, both during the pregnancy and for a 
    while afterwards, thus making it easier to be victimized.
    
>   ..but I prefer not to view the world as consisting mostly of attackers 
    and victims. 

I prefer that also, try not to, and usually succeed.  

However, there are times when I do catch myself doing it...
Like when men loitering at this playground I must walk by in Cambridge 
on the way to an evening meeting at least once a week whistle at me.  
I think, "They could rape me, and I  wouldn't have a prayer at defending 
myself."  It's upsetting and leaves me with a sense of futility.  
Or when I'm just walking around a mall, and I see a very petite, thin, 
or obviously weak woman, I typically think, "She should start lifting weights 
so she would at least not *look* so vulnerable, and then take a course 
in self-defense with a handgun so she would not actually *be* as vulnerable." 

The above examples and the discussion on understanding that all men are
potential rapists are what prompted me to enter 525.55....  I didn't
realize before that, while it takes a man to say or do something 
unordinary to make me think "potential rapist", it only takes a woman to 
be too thin, slight of build, or weak for me to think "potential victim".

							nancy b.

    Re .60: I hear what you're saying, Nancy, but I don't agree.
    
    >Is it just a woman's reality to be a victim of violence?  
    
    I believe that everybody is a _potential_ victim of violence, and while
    it is obvious that some groups seem to be victimized more often, it
    seems to me that focusing on woman-as-victim doesn't do anything to
    help the situation.
    
    >If
    >we could accept that we [women] are inevitable victims, wouldn't it be
    >easier to handle the violence when it occurred?
    
    This statement bothers me. While I do think one should be prepared to
    face the problems of life, this sounds too much like the dreadful "lie
    back and enjoy it". I don't think that's what you meant, but it rings
    that way to me.
    
    I believe that _humans_ are all potential (not inevitable) victims. I
    don't worry about it much, but I do try to avoid situations that  make
    me vulnerable; and if the worst should happen, I believe I will get
    through it - cursing perhaps, crying certainly, railing against Fate
    maybe, but I will get through. (Or die, of course, but since that's the
    One True Inevitability, I don't worry about that at all!)
    
>                  if: we believe x, 
>                then: when y occurs, we understand, because y = f(x)
>
>                where x = women are natural victims of violence because of...
>                      y = violence
>                   
>                In other words, having violence inflicted on us is just 
>                ... a function of being a woman.

    Hmmm. New thought: Is the idea to remove any possibility of feelings of
    guilt at being victimized? This theory would certainly do _that_. "I am
    woman, therefore I will be beaten up; doesn't matter what I do or say,
    so it's Not My Fault. It's a law of Nature." If that's comforting, OK,
    but I find it disabling instead, as if there isn't any point in even
    trying to find solutions.
    
    I dunno. I just don't find it useful to think of myself as a victim,
    potential or otherwise. I choose the word "survivor".
    
    One other thing. Your focus on physical strength vs. weakness confused
    me a little. When I said I thought of women as tough, I wasn't thinking
    "able to beat anybody on the block," but a combination of mental,
    emotional, and physical _resilience_; the ability to endure. (Many of
    the notes in this string - including yours - seem to bear this out in
    spades!) But when you say that you want to urge a frail, thin woman to
    take up weightlifting - and then comment that I'm mistaken if I think a
    woman is physically tougher than a man - you seem to be contradicting
    yourself. No matter how strong I get, I'm never going to be able to
    out-fight most men (or women... or 8-year-olds...) But even if I were
    the heavyweight champ of the world, all it would take is an armed
    opponent, or two or three unarmed ones, to make all that muscle
    irrelevant. So I'm a bit confused on that point, because if women are
    inevitable victims, what difference would it make if they built
    themselves up?
    
    My, how I do run on. This has certainly been a thought-provoking topic;
    heck, it's been provoking me since last night!
    
    -b

    re. the frail women building themselves up
    
    I think it's important that one not project a 'victim look',
    that is, if one looks healthy and self-confident, one is less
    likely to be hassled, even if _not_ really able to defend
    oneself physically. 
    
    Picture two women, both 5'4", 110 lbs. One works out, has a
    tan, walks confidently. The other has poor muscle tone, looks
    pale, walks hesitantly. Who is more likely to be victimized ?
    
    Dana (who admits that at 5'10 & 200 + it's easy not to look
          like a victim)

    I MUST respond to .55.  I only read .55 and all this has probably
    been said but it could use restating...
    
    There is absolutely NO REASON why women are "natural" rather than
    socialized victims.  I agree with all the statements about being
    socialized to weakness but I do not agree that less height or weight
    makes one naturally a victim. 
    
    IF THAT WERE TRUE, SMALL JAPANESE MEN WOULD BE THE "NATURAL" VICTIMS
    OF LARGE, WHITE MEN.  This is not the case.  If you want inspiration
    that slight people can effectively defend themselves, try Bruce
    Lee.  
    
    Let alone that most of defense is AWARENESS not PHYSICALITY.  
    
    I don't care if a man is as big and strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger.
    If a woman is socialized to feel that she can and will defend herself,
    she can.  Arnold has a jugular vein.  Arnold (assumedly) has VERY
    vulnerable genitalia (unlike women).  Arnold has a very breakable
    nose.  Arnold has eyeballs in eyesockets.  Arnold, with all his
    strength cannot hold even a very weak woman by the wrist who knows
    how to turn her wrist against his thumb.  The human thumb simply
    does not have the power. 
    
    Let alone weapons.  Women can learn to use weapons effectively and
    equalize the difference in height and weight.  With training and
    a .45 the "natural" difference can be compensated for.
    
    The idea that women are "natural" victims because of size IS ITSELF
    THE VICTIMIZATION!!!!!!!!It is difficult to fight socialization
    and learn to be aware and learn to defend yourself but it can be
    done and MUST be done. 
    
    I have heard that Model Mugging (a course on self-defense -- it's
    available from Interface) is excellent in this regard.
    
    IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!  I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!  I'm not saying we can
    win every battle but to say that we a priori lose because of nature
    is DANGEROUS and VICTIMIZING.
                                           

    re: .59:
    
    That's scary!  But, at the same time, I would like to mention that
    trains, especially night trains, are a special case.  They will
    probably be filled with a lot of people from outside of the home
    country  (you didn't specify the nationality of your assailants;
     not that you would necessarily know, but you could guess).  The
    roads, at least in Scandinavia, would have less foreigners:
    Scandinavia is so far out of the way from most places that I noticed
    very few cars there from non-Scandinavian countries.  So perhaps
    hitching is actually SAFER than late-night trains in the Scandinavian
    countries.
    
    Keith

        (Just catching up. Been to California on business. I'll probably
        be a little scarce for the rest of the month, too.)
        
        The idea that women are natural victims or that men are natural
        victimizers are, so far as I'm concerned, extremely dangerous
        and far more likely to encourage victimization than reduce it.
        It is not at all natural or inevitable that women are victims,
        nor is it necessary or normal for men to be victimizers.
        
        These ideas strike me as dangerous in at least two ways. First
        of all it gives victimizers an excuse--a way to escape the
        responsibility for their actions. They merely fob off their
        actions as "just doin' what comes naturally". They excuse their
        actions because abuse is the natural fate of women.
        
        Second, it seems to me that the expectation that one is going to
        be victimized leads one to play the victim. If one has a
        self-image as small, weak, fragile vulnerable and a natural
        victim, then my experience is that one is much more likely to be
        victimized. The attitude that Beth Rust has been presenting
        seems to me to be one that will do a lot more in terms of
        minimizing the probability of victimization than the "women are
        natural victims" notion. 
        
        It seems to me that looking like a victim is much more a
        function of internals than of physical condition. Working out
        and building up muscle may help a person look less like a
        victim, but I think that most of the diffrence would come from
        the way they feel about themselves and the determination that
        caused them to do it in the first place.
        
        My own experience is that inner strength, peace and self-esteme
        are amongst the strongest armor against victimization, and at
        the same time some of the most important assets one can have if
        one needs to recover from being victimized.
        
        On the other hand, having been a victim can make it very hard to
        find the strength and peace that is needed.
        
        JimB.

From one of the feminist books on sex in the book store Martin Minow 
recommended in 11.58...

				***caution*** 
		    potential offensive language proceeds





                                  Rape defined:



               "An animal fuck delivered by animal masculinity."

    <--(.66)
    
    That's sorta interesting when I think about it, y'know?  I can
    certainly hear the anger in the words...wow, can I ever!... but it
    seems as though in the end it fails for two reasons:  (a) it makes sex
    the focal motive rather than the violent control of women; and (b) it
    gives either rapists far too much credit, or animals far too little: 
    who ever heard of any non-human animal commiting rape?  
    
    						=maggie

    RE:Maggie
    
    I don't think animals rape, but they sure try.....I've got a female
    cat, spayed. The local males still hang around my house and sing
    their lonely love songs. When she goes outside at night or when
    I forget to call her in the males go after her like she's in heat.
    I've gone outside to bring her in and find her fighting like hell
    with a male draped over her back....
    
    Maybe she's a tease???? 8^)
    
    Ken

>    who ever heard of any non-human animal commiting rape?  

 Well, I have seen it, sort of, though it all depends on your definition of
rape. A large and powerful tomcat forcefully mated with a sexually immature
female cat on the front lawn of a friend's house. (We knew the cat was sexually 
immature because it was the daughter of the tom). We heard its screeches and
squirted the tom until he decoupled, but it sure looked like rape to me, ie
the female cat was quite unhappy about the whole event. 

 Was it really rape? I dunno. Like I said, it depends on your idea of rape.
Another example is that of (can't remember the species of rodent) that will
mount another of it's own sex if no member of the opposite sex is around.
Supposedly this is done to assert dominance and "keep all systems working."

 So I think there are parallels in the non-human animal world to rape.

 the Doctah

    re .67  A magazine article I recently read described an 
    incident in an area where a few dozen deer were penned.
    If callousness bothers you, please KP-comma
    
        The does do not all come into estrus at exactly the same 
    time, and when one does, she is the center of attention of 
    all the surrounding males. 
    
    In this pen, one doe in heat was repeatedly mounted by a
    gang of bucks, to the point of exhaustion. When she
    attempted to lie down, she was prodded by antlers until
    she rose, then mounted again. This continued for about 36
    hours.

   re: .67 (=maggie)
>  but it seems as though in the end it fails for two reasons:  
>  (a) it makes sex the focal motive rather than the violent control of women;

Good catch - the focal point of the book was indeed sex, not rape.

Moreover, the context of the phrase was something like : 

"She didn't want a rape... She wanted more than an animal fuck delivered
 by animal masculinity."

...and the context of *that* sentence was in a chapter discussing 
how sexual intercourse is frequently just two people, *both* experiencing ...
a man being male.
							     nancy b.

        No. Not a man being male. A man being violent or a man being
        inconsiderate or aman being a victimizer or a man being cruel or
        a man being thoughtless, but not a man being male. Being male is
        no excuse to be any of the above.
        
        JimB.

	re: .72 (Jim Burrows)
	    -----------------

	-< Just a man being male? >- does not refer to "rape".  I admit 
	in rereading .71, this isn't clear.  You know how you enter the 
	title of a reply after you finish writing the reply?

	The subject of .71,  -< Just a man being male? >- , refers to the 
	very last sentence I wrote in the reply.  It refers to the 
	subject of the book's chapter that I described in .71 as follows:

          .71>     ...and the context of *that* sentence was in a chapter 
          .71>     discussing how sexual intercourse is frequently just  
          .71>     two people, *both* experiencing ... a man being male.

	I've thought a bit on how my experiences fit into the author's thesis 
	about sexual intercourse being "two people experiencing a man being
	male", which she later uses as proof of the ultimate irony behind the
	logic of male supremacy.  
 
        I wondered what other =wn=ers would think about the statement above...

	It's an interesting proposition, though not one I agree with based
        on my experiences.  But others may feel differently.
        Thus, I used it as the subject of .71.


	My question for you, Jim, is what were *you* referring to in .72 with 

	  >  No. Not a man being male. A man being violent or a man being
          >  inconsiderate or aman being a victimizer or a man being cruel or
	  >  a man being thoughtless, but not a man being male. Being male is
	  >  no excuse to be any of the above.
        

	Were you referring to rape?  If so, I hardly find "inconsiderate" an 
	appropriate adjective to use to describe a man that rapes.  
        Inconsiderate describes someone without good manners, someone who 
        cuts in front of you on the road...not a man that rapes.    

	But maybe I'm biased...
								nancy b.

        Was I refering to rape in 525.73? Well, yes, along with the
        other forms of unsatisfactory sex that appeared to be referred
        to in the passage quoted. I had realized that a number of topics
        were being refered to in the note to which I was replying,
        ranging the gammut from rape to mere man-centered sex. 
        
        The notion of "two people both experiencing a man being male"
        seemed to be being applied rather broadly in the notes to which
        I was responding. It seemed clear that a lot of "normal" or at
        least every day sex was being painted with that brush, but that
        at least one person regarded highly male orient animalistic sex
        to be the equivalent of rape. The spectrum between mere male-
        centered sex through to classic violent rape seemed to be
        brought in without a great deal of delineation amongst the
        various kinds of behavior.
        
        For all of these behaviors, however, I don't see it as an issue
        of someone acting male, but rather of someone acting badly in
        some manner, from mere thoughtlessness or inconsideration in the
        case of male-centered but consentual sex through to cruelty,
        violence and victimization at the end of classic violent rape.
        
        The root issue is not a man being male, but some form of
        imposition upon the woman. Far too much feminist rhetoric and
        reasoning appears to place the blame on masculinity, which I
        hold to be highly non-productive. It gives victimizers a form of
        camoflage to hide behind. It focuses attention and effort to
        solve the problem on something other than the route problem. And
        it alienates some number of people who would otherwise be on the
        side of solving the problem.
        
        I think, by the way, that the general problem that is being
        refered to is a real one. I think that in fact too much of the
        focus on sex in our culture is on male-centered sex rather than
        on balanced male/female sex. More than that, I think that the
        center poit is a rather badly distorted view of the masculine
        aspect or view of sex.
        
        A recent editorial in Playboy, for instance, pointed out that
        most X-rated films are aimed at a male audience, but went on to
        question why people thought that the kind of imagery used was or
        ought to be appealing to men. It certainly isn't erotic in the
        eyes of many men, the author of the commentary and me for
        instance. Erotic film aimed at women-- if you can find such--is
        far more appealing to these men and quite possibly to the vast
        majority of men. Why, then, is just about the entire porn film
        industry centered on such a distorted view of masculinity?
        
        It seems to me that this focus on male-centered (or male-off-
        centered) sex is harmful to both men and women and to healthy
        sex. It doesn't seem to me to be any sort of normal male
        behavior, but rather a social pathology that our culture suffers
        from and one that needs some amount of fixing for everybodies
        sake. Clearly, in as much as this problem contributes to rape or
        other manipulative, oppressive or victimizing sexual behavior in
        men, women suffer more due to it. After all, the vast majority
        of victims of sexual assaults and rape are women. Nonetheless,
        men are at times victims in just the same ways, and by having
        their own attitudes and behaviors warped by this problem they
        are in a sense also victims.
        
        So, in as much as I understand the viewpoint that was being
        presented, I think I agree that it has identified--at least
        roughly--a very real and a very important problem in the area of
        sexual relations and behaviors. I disagree with some of what I
        see as the rhetorical baggage that is attached to the statement
        of the problem, however.
        
        JimB.

    
    
    Could further descriptions of rape in the animal kingdom please
    follow a formfeed and a warning?
    
    							thanks,
    							nancy b.

    With regard to the subject of "rape" amongst animals, I am including
    the following description of sexual practices among mallard ducks,
    taken from Rien Poortvliet's _The Living Forest_.  It is placed after
    a form feed because it describes fairly graphically behaviour which,
    occurring among humans, would be atrocious.

	-Neil
    
        The problem with mallard drakes is that they are "oversexed".
        I have often been very upset watching their merciless male
        assaults.  No female duck is safe when she is outnumbered by a
        troop of drakes.  The drakes fasten their beaks to the back of
        the hen duck's head and push her under water.  If she is lucky,
        she may escape wretchedly through the waterplants.  Quite often,
        the duck drowns and then her brood will also perish.  You can do
        little to stop this wretched behavior beyond throwing a stick at
        the drakes.

There's been a lot of discussion about violence against women and men.
Here are some stats that may be of interest.  I'm not sure what they
mean but here goes.  They are from US govment figures from the late
seventies.


            Victims/100K         Offenders/100K
             M     F               M      F

Murder       16    4               7      1
Rape         20  200              13      .1 (not stat significant)
Robbery    1000  400              55      4
Assault    1400  600              92     14

john

re: .78  (John Heffernan)

Thanks for supplying those stats...
I'd be very interested to see them broken down further by race 
and by age group.

I have a hunch (probably read this at one point, but can't remember
where) that you'd see the segment of the population most likely
to be the victim of robbery or assault is : 

      black males between 15 - 25 or 15 - 30 years of age.

But I'm not absolutely sure...anyone know the truth?

One place comes to mind that I would not want to step foot close to
if I were male (of any color) -- the Fenway area of Boston.  It seems
every other time I pick up the paper I read about a male victim of 
intolerant thugs out gay-bashing.

I still think women make *much* easier victims than men for all the 
reasons I listed previously in 525.55 and in 525.60.  I quit defending
the statements in this topic because to continue I'd have to post the
reply I wrote to 525.63 which would undoubtably hurt someone's feelings
and be in poor judgement on my part.

However ... 

if women are easier victims (still my current opinion) than men, why
the disproportionate percentage of [perhaps mostly young black] males 
being victimized (granted, by other males) instead of females?

						nancy b.

>if women are easier victims (still my current opinion) than men, why
>the disproportionate percentage of [perhaps mostly young black] males 
>being victimized (granted, by other males) instead of females?

 1. Drugs (deals gone sour or perp on them)
 2. gang violence
 3. the long cycle of revenge and retribution
 4. machismo

 As far as assaults go, the perps aren't always looking for the easiest victim.
Oftentimes an assault is a test of one's strength/power/ability to prevail
upon someone perceived to be a challenge. (Mostly the case with serial
assaults). And one cannot overlook the grudge factor, especially in the inner 
cities.

 The Doctah

	I've received similar questions on some of the specific things 
	I mentioned in 99.37.  Am answering here in case anyone 
	else is wondering the same thing...

	o  At the time I did not think to ask the male police officers to
	   leave during the gyn exam, although their presence did bother 
	   me.  Later, when I inquired why they stayed there during the 
	   exam, I was told that they had to ensure proper procedures were
	   followed by the doctor so that any results of medical corrobor-
	   ation that I was raped would hold up in court.

	o  I don't know what drug I was given to prevent pregnancy.

	o  Yes, I was told any statements I made to a crisis center 
	   counselor could be brought as evidence in court, although
	   there was no clear-cut precedent for a challenge to this.
	   Confidentiality rules don't seem to apply here.

	o  I have *not* been compensated since for any medical expenses 
	   by Him.  It's news to me that some states do this.

	o  Federal Sentencing Guidelines place sexual assault at offense
	   level 27 (for reference, murder 1 is offense level 43).  
	   Sexual assault against someone under the age of 12 raises the 
	   offense level by 4, against someone under the age of 16 raises 
	   the offense level by 2, permanently injuring the victim...+6,  
	   seriously injuring the victim...+4.  

	   Want to hear a joke ? An offense level of 27 carries a suggested 
	   imprisionment of 70 - 87 years.

	   The average time served by a convicted rapist is 36 months.
						
							nancy b.

    For what it's worth...
    
    pursuant to Nancy's 99.37 and my own previous entry in the string about
    my own experience:
    
    I absolutely INSISTED upon a woman police office to be present at the
    gyn exam.  After the trauma of the interrogation by the two [male]
    officers, there was no WAY I was going to just stretch myself out and
    spread my legs with them in the room.  For 40 minutes I sat curled up
    in a tight little ball and indulged in the most un-mannerly responses
    to both the officers and the doctor [a woman] as they tried to harrass
    me into compliance.  The woman officer, who finally arrived, was no more
    sympathetic than anyone else I had encountered [dates don't rape, you
    know, they just 'get a bit hot and bothered and lose control' -- now
    isn't THAT a puny comment on men, but I digress...].
    
    While my little stand for being treated like a living breathing human
    being may have been personally empowering, it pretty much nailed the
    coffin lid closed on any chance of redress through the justice system. 
    I had proved myself to be a difficult woman...no doubt I had it coming.
    Yes, even the doctor expressed the opinion that I was just the sort
    that needed to be taken down a notch or two.
    
    Somehow I can't reconcile being raped by a friend with my come-uppance.
    
      Ann

    	Please excuse me for jumping into the middle of this.
    
    	Last evening, Oprah had a family on. Daughter had been raped
    	one evening while waiting for a bus to take her to her job.
    
    	The mother was so furious, she and husband (police officer in
    	the city) finally staked out the location. The same man that
    	raped the daughter attacked the mother. She was wearing a
    	bullet-proof vest and carrying a stun gun. Her husband arrived
    	within seconds of the wife's attack. He identified himself, but
    	the rapist ran. Father chased, but could not catch him.
    
    	Eventually, the man was caught. He had 123 counts against him.
    	Sentence: Life plus 1700 years in prison.
    
    	BTW, the mother (by her own admission) was a whopping 105 pounds.
    	But, she knew the odds. She said she knew she had a 10% chance
    	of being killed, but did it anyway.
    
    	Sorry for the interruption. Thought maybe you'd like to hear about
    	this woman's courage.
    
    	Scott

    Speaking of stories,
    
    Back in like 1975 I think it was...I remember a rape suspect was
    held at a local police station and I don't remember what part of
    the legal process the suspect was but the mother of the child that
    this guy raped brought a gun and shot him 5 times. Of course she
    was arrested and the rape suspect (who was paralysed from the neck
    down) was released. The mother was later found inocent because of
    temporary insanity. Sorry for the confusing details but if you were
    around then you could remember this story and that for once a criminal
    got what he deserved. 
    
    Fred Mudgett 

    re:.84
    
    It's nice to know that a *suspect* who hadn't been tried, let
    alone convicted, got the justice "he deserved".
    
    --- jerry

          I was a total failure in therapy for rape several years ago, and
          have not attempted formal counseling since.

          [BTW, I feel I've accomplished so much more in the way of
          understanding what happened and working out my feelings (anger,
          confusion, hatred, powerlessness, etc...)  here, in =wn=, more
          than I ever did in therapy. *thank you*, =wn=]

          So for the next couple years, right up until I started writing in
          topic 99, I tried to forget it all, to not think about it ever.
          This works until I try to sleep.

          Those (men) with (unpleasant) firsthand knowledge of my
          nightmares told me that suppressing myself and not talking about
          it was wrong, and that I couldn't expect to ever get better till
          I did.

          Eventually, in my own time, I decide to talk about it.  Here, in
          =wn=.  I admittedly was very focused, very intense...  Ironically
          enough, this led to comments from 3 (all male, what a
          coincidence!; 2 in topic 714 "Boundaries of Fear" and 1 via
          email) members of =wn= to the effect of "That's about all you
          talk about here".

          The catch-22 presents itself - I'm blamed for not talking about
          it; I'm warned and judged when I talk about it freely, which
          causes me to feel that I've somehow screwed up again.

          Reflecting on this leads me to imagine that other rape victims
          have probably experienced this also...in different contexts... 
          (I'll refer to myself as a rape "survivor" when I stop having 
          nightmares so frequently).

          But someone at DougO's dinner last week discussed with me the
          aspect of being focused and intense on a particular area.  She
          used examples to illustrate that being focused to an extreme on
          an issue is a very effective way that many people have used to
          accomplish their goal.  She helped me conclude that it was "OK"
          to talk predominantly about rape and it's effects on me here.  I
          suddenly felt much better about my contributions to =wn= than I
          had since I was first told I was obsessive about it.

          Thank you Joyce LaMotte.

                                                            nancy b.

Hurrah and thanx to Joyce from me too!
	Mez

            I've been reading a book entitled "Men on Rape - What They
            Have to Say on Sexual Violence" by Timothy Beneke.  Reading
            this has helped me to better understand several events that
            happened to me after I was raped, namely why my SO broke up
            with me, and why I was treated so inhumanly in court by the
            defense lawyer (this doesn't mean I excuse him from what he
            did; just that I understand his motives better.)

            Part of the book consists of interviews of a variety of men
            on the subject of rape.  One man, a social worker in his
            mid-fourties, describes the following experience:


            "I once knew a woman who wanted me to rape her to prove a
            point.  She was a very bright woman, a radical feminist, who
            was taking the intellectual position that a man could wear
            down a woman's resistance in a strictly physical sense very
            quickly; that he could simply outlast her, and that a woman
            submitting to a man without struggling is not doing it
            willingly, but because she's simply run out of energy.  This
            woman put me to the test by asking me to rape her, literally
            to force her to the bed and force her legs apart and to keep
            struggling with her until I wore down her resistance, which
            she was convinced would cave in before I wore out.  She
            initially put up a fierce struggle, which I simply matched,
            without trying to overpower her, and sure enough, her energy
            was totally drained in a very short time (two or three
            minutes), while I hadn't even gone to my reserve energy
            yet...."

            Reading that reinforced my concept of reality that most
            women (say all but the upper 5-8% in terms of strength and
            agility) are physically very vulnerable to most men.  In
            thinking about that I recalled a recent experience of mine
            which also illustrated that point.

            This past summer I had a housemate that I grew to be very
            close friends with.  We did a lot of sports activities
            together (basketball, swimming, tossing a football around
            after work, etc.), and were generally a good athletic match
            with regards to endurance and energy.  One Saturday, we were
            discussing whose turn it was to do a certain household chore
            that neither of us really wanted to do.  He suggested we
            wrestle, and the person who was pinned would have to do the
            chore.  I thought about it for a second and agreed with the
            rationale that I might learn something about defending
            myself, and that,  my chances were probably 50-50 (you'd
            think I'd have known better!).    Uh-uh.  After about 3.5
            minutes, I was pinned and totally exhausted by a guy who was
            shorter than I!   He gave me some pointers, but I could
            never pin him (though it gradually took longer for him to
            pin me).  So I did a lot of lawn-mowing last summer :-).
            (just kidding - we took turns after the first time I got
            stuck doing it)
                                                         nancy b.

Well, that's certainly going to great lengths to attempt to prove a point to
yourself!
	Mez

            One concept I've never understood about rape is how and why
            the psychological and physical components of a man are *not*
            in conflict when the rape is committed...

            It is asserted that rape is a crime of violence ... not of
            out-of-control lust or sex.  Indeed, the classic police-
            blotter rapist is typically very angry at women, and chooses
            to express that resentment through rape.

            How a man can be emotionally enraged enough to be committing
            acts of violence against another human being while
            _simultaneously_ being sexually aroused enough to have an
            erection?

                                                    nancy b.

            [FWIW, the man that raped me (twice in  1-1.5 hours) was
            angry at women because he blamed his parents' divorce solely
            on his mother.  He had apparently not been abused as a
            child.  He was good looking, articulate, educated, held a
            steady job, was 29 at the time, and could easily pass for
            the man in the cube next door.  Though this was his first
            rape conviction, he had a previous history of minor sexual
            offenses that indicated to me he'd probably acted out his
            hostility against women several times before.]

>            How a man can be emotionally enraged enough to be committing
>            acts of violence against another human being while
>            _simultaneously_ being sexually aroused enough to have an
>            erection?

I don't have an explanation, but two things...

1) I myself have felt that I can feel aroused when I am furious with
   someone.  I don't think that ability is exclusively male, or exclusively
   rapist.  In a psych course I took last semester, we talked about a
   phenomenon that I felt was a good explanation of this... I don't
   remember what it was called, something like "spillover".  The basic 
   idea was that when people are feeling a strong emotion (say, anger)
   and then they find themselves in a situation where that emotion is not
   appropriate (say, with a female in front of them), they can confuse/
   change their original emotion into one more appropriate for the situation
   (say, arousal.)

   One study sited in the course was about fear vs. arousal.  They had
   people cross over a very teetering, apparantly unsafe bridge, presumably
   producing fear while it was crossed.  On the other side, an interviewer
   greeted them and asked them questions about their state.  When the 
   interviewer was the opposite sex from the participant, often he or she
   would feel aroused.  When the participant was the same sex as the 
   interviewer, they often became angry instead.

   They don't conclusively state *why* this happens, only that it does.
   My own (somewhat supported) theory is it has to do with adrenalin and
   endorphins and such in the blood associated with strong emotions...
   that emotion needs to be directed somewhere....

2) I have *heard* that many times rapists *don't* manage to get full
   erections, and that sometimes the beating associated with a rape is
   not only anger at women but frustration at their inability.  But I
   dunno, I am not a rapist, nor have I done much study of this.

D!

    
    The use of force or power over someone is a very erotic sensation. If
    indulging in a little gentle wrestling with my wife I can bvecome
    aroused.
    
    ed

          re: 544.88 (MEZ)

          > Does anyone know if 'date rape' or 'acquaintance rape' has
          > a conviction rate at all akin to 'random rape'?

          From:
                    Kristin Williams, _The Prosecution of Sexual Assaults_,
                    (Washington, D.C.:Institute for Law and Social
                    Research, 1978).

                    Battelle Memorial Institute, Law and Justice Study
                    Center, _Forcible Rape: A National Survey of the
                    Response by Prosecutors_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                    Department of Justice, 1977)

          [paraphrasing]

          The two most significant factors in determining the outcome of
          rape cases are (1) the relationship between the victim and the
          defendant and (2) the use of physical force during the alleged
          rape (other factors are resistance by the victim, injury to the
          victim, use of weapon).

          In the DC area, researchers have found that the closer the
          relationship between the victim and offender, the lower the
          conviction rate, despite the violence level of the incident.

          (I couldn't find where I recorded national statistics, MEZ, and
          even if I did they would probably be meaningless because the
          stats on this varies so much from city to city).

          The "probability of indictment" with stranger vs non-stranger
          cases appears to be better researched then the "probability of
          conviction."   In New York City, only *7* % of the non-stranger
          cases led to indictments, whereas 33% of the "stranger" cases led
          to indictments.

          One part of the process of convicting a rapist that most people
          are unaware of is the power that your local police officers have
          in determining whether your case is "founded" or "unfounded".
          "Unfounded" cases are not prosecuted.  One study showed that in
          New York, 25% of the time a potential case is classified as
          "unfounded" if there is a prior relationship between victim and
          offender (as opposed to 5% of the time with stranger rapes).

          These statistics disgust me.  I believe we are seeing the result
          of what happens when police*men* on case teams form male
          judgements of a woman's explanation of rape, when one fourth of
          the women who come forward to prosecute a rape are turned away at
          the very first step in the process.

          The book "Men on Rape" describes acquaintance rape as "Rape with
          a little 'r'".  One trial deputy in a D.A.'s office who has
          prosecuted over 30 rape cases himself said, "We still have older
          D.A.s in the office who have classical attitudes toward rape,
          like 'Where's the crime?'"

                                                            nancy b.

Thanx Nancy. I was wondering why we were mostly discussing 'stranger rape',
when all the statistics I've heard point to the fact that it is the least
likely form of rape. In particular, I wonder about the linkage with pornography
and rape (and brought up in other topics) and 'rape by a normal man, who is
known to the woman he assails', as it were. In fact, I wonder about pornography
and those men in a position of power who blow off acquaintance rape.
	Mez

    I'm going to admit my ignorance about the criminal "justice" system
    here and ask:  if the police/DA determine the rape charge is
    "unfounded," does the victim have any recourse?   In other words,
    are there other avenues  -- short of vigilante action, that is --
    that she can pursue to bring the rapist to trial?  Civil procedures, 
    for instance.
    
    Karen

    re.93 - 95.
    
    First, Nancy, while I concede your point that most police officers are
    men and that most of the persons I dealt with in the aftermath of my
    rape by a dear and valued friend were men, I must point out that the
    most virulent abuse I suffered came from _women_.  I was a serious
    'fear object' to these women, much more than to the men involved.  I
    was living proof that a woman not doing anything 'risky' could still be
    at risk -- there were no 'explanations' that neatly categorised why it
    happened, other than I was alone with him and _that_ couldn't be gthe
    reason could it?
    
    I believe that this might be why we are not discussing it more, Mez. 
    There is nothing we can speak of in terms of future prevention; there
    would seem to be no action that we can take.  I can talk of the
    side-effects, and I can talk of the healing process, but I cannot speak
    of actions which might have prevented it.  Certainly, I would not have
    been raped by this man is I had not been with him, but
    acquaintance/date rape broadens the field of potential assailants to
    the point that it would been absolutely impossible to avoid them all.
    
    And finally, Karen, if the DA/police determine that your charge is
    unfounded, you may certainly get a lawyer and pursue other avenues.
    [Finding a civil aspect of rape could prove difficult, though.]  If you
    are barred from bringing the rape to trial, you may certainly pursue it
    in the media; however, you will certainly be publically crucified and
    run a _serious_ risk of being brought up on slander/libel charges
    yourself as your 'victim' [the rapist] will be able to point to the
    undisputable fact that fact that the authorities found no grounds for
    indictment.
    
      Ann
    
    

          I originally wrote this reply last July, but didn't feel quite
          right about posting it then.  It now seems somewhat relevant to
          the friend of 812.0 "Problems arising from an assault" if the man
          who raped her twice is ever caught and she must decide whether to
          try to convict him...



          A question I received from a member of the =wn= community a
          (long) while ago prompted me to look through some of the research
          I did in law libraries while preparing for court, and the notes I
          took on what happened in court.

          Though it was painful to look again at what I was writing at that
          time, I realized after Ann Johnston related her story about date
          rape in topic 99 that some of the information I had might be
          useful here in support of her subject title : 'Prosecuting is not
          always the answer'. Also, this should illustrate to others who
          might be skeptical of why prosecuting is (in the best case) not
          necessarily in the best interest of the victim, and (in the worst
          case) could be more damaging to her long term mental health than
          the rape itself.

 
 
          Some comic relief to start this off (at least, I found his
          wording of the first sentence mildly humorous/ironic):

          Sympathetic police officer: "Those rape laws are all f*cked up.
          I wouldn't want my wife or daughters to go through that."





          The following are examples of:

          (1)Questions I was asked, and questions my lawyer told me I could
          be asked under oath...questions I had to answer or risk being
          discredited by not answering

          (2)Shocking court precedents that have been set using totally
          irrevalent data as rules of proof

          To understand why what I will describe below can happen in the
          'criminal justice system', you must realize the following:



          When lawyer agrees to take a case, the lawyer typically believes
          the case can be won.  Therefore, in the event of rape, the [IMHO
          inhuman, scumbag, ...] lawyer is going to attempt to prove you
          [general] somehow *consented* to sexual intercourse with the
          defendant, or to convince the jury you are not a true 'victim'
          because you were bound to be raped sooner or later, because of
          ..[see below].. and therefore the "victim" (technically the
          "witness" in People vs Him) is guilty of entrapment and the
          defendant (Him) was just acting on your 'suggestions'.

          On the other hand, if rape were treated like aggravated assault
          by those in the 'criminal justice system', the question of
          consent would not enter into the case.  After all, who *wants* to
          be assaulted?

          With rape, of course, you have to *prove* you didn't want it for
          the rapist to be found guilty.


          Warning: some explicit sexual terms follow...



          Questions the 'victim' could be asked under oath :

          o  Did _you_ have an orgasm during the alleged rape?  {this
          question was cleverly disguised by the slimebag criminal defense
          lawyer who asked it *after* the legitimate question (to confirm
          medical corroboration), "Did the _defendant_ have an orgasm?"
          Hopefully, your lawyer would be awake enough to object at that
          point.}
          read:  at some point, you began to enjoy it

          o  Were you a virgin on [date of alleged rape] ?
             read: "You weren't a virgin anyway..."

          o  Were you wearing a bra at [time, date] ?
             read: "The manner in which you dress could have provoked
                    attack."

          o  Did you have sexual intercourse with anyone else on [date]?
             read: "The semen found in the medical exam could have been
                    another man's."

          o  Could you demonstrate to the court how loudly you screamed?

          o  Did you have sexual intercourse on [the day of the alleged
             rape]?

             Think *quick* -- what's the correct answer, given you "made
          love" to  no one that day?

             "Yes - once, if you include the rape, because rape is defined
          as forced sexual intercourse."

             tricky tricky...


          o  How many other men have you accused of rape?


          Court precedents noted:

          o  the shock experienced by a woman immediately following the
          rape resulted in a false display of tranquility and calmness.
          This not the way the men in power in the judicial system expect a
          woman who's been raped to behave. This was successfully used
          against the women in the rapist's defense.

          o  a conviction was overturned on implications of the fact that
          the victim told the rapist to "fuck-off" when initially
          responding to verbal harassment

          o  need an objective showing of evidence on non-consent --
             People V Taylor, Illinois, 1961
             He threatened that he had a gun.
             She never actually *saw* the gun.
             The rape conviction was overturned in appeals court.

                                                       nancy b.

    
    
> Does it ever end for the victims or there family?
    
    It depends on what you mean by "end"!!  The memory will never go away.
    In fact, a good part of the healing process involves remembering -- in
    a healthy way.
    
    If it "ending" means learning to live with the memory and move on, yes,
    it does end, thought the process is never ending.  It "ends" with the
    help of a good counselor and a loving Saviour.
    
    	Greg 

       I'm writing a "victim impact statement", which I will mail in place of
       personally attending the parole-grant hearing on Nov 10.

       The information requested of me is how I have been affected by the
       crime He committed.  For this, I am basically using the list of side
       effects I described in 99.29.  I think I'm also going to include 99.37
       ("Don't Scream"), if just to raise their awareness of the reality of
       rape's aftermath in today's "enlightened" times.

       My purpose with this letter is to somehow make it more unlikely He
       will be released.

       Is there _anything_ else that you think I could write in the letter
       that could influence the parole board to *not* approve his release?

                                                         nancy b.

    First, I'd advise you to talk with a lawyer familiar with rape parole
    hearings.  I think you might get very good advise from this person.
    I would talk to a lawyer, with an initial letter, if I were you.
    
    I believe that the parole boards are swayed by the following:
    
    	1. Severity/brutality of the crime
    	2. Reasons to expect a reoccurance
    
    I don't think they specifically pay as much attention to revenge
    as they should.  I would give any evidence of this that I had just
    the same.
    
    In 99.29 you did not mention anything about the assault except that
    you still have one scar.  If I were you, I would describe the event
    in brutal detail.  I would want the members of the board to vividly
    picture what he did.  I would detail the injuries.  I would detail
    the pain, which includes mention of the things you listed unemotionally
    in 99.29, but this time I would insert the intensity of pain and
    duration of suffering.  If your pain doesn't show in the letter,
    I think you will fail.  You need to build up empathy in them, and
    that is done through feelings not thoughts.
    
    Do you have any history of past offenses for this person.  I would
    say as much as I can about these to begin to demonstrate how the
    rapist has not been rehabilitated in the past.  Has he said anything
    about what he would do in the future?  
    
    Can you say anything about his lack of remorse or threats?
    
    Lastly, can you get in touch with any past victims?  Work together
    on it.  Try to get them to write hard hitting letters as well.
    
    I would probably also mention something about Truth in Sentencing.
    Seven to 15 should mean that he might get out in seven years if
    he is an ideal prisoner.  There should be no case of getting out
    sooner.  But I would talk to a lawyer before inserting this.  The
    Board may consider it an attack on them, and you want them on your
    side.
    
    I know my suggestions are painful, I just hope they're not too painful
    for you.  I wish you Peace.
    
    Bud

          re: .100  (Bud Luebkert)


          >    First, I'd advise you to talk with a lawyer familiar
          >    with rape parole hearings.  I think you might get very
          >    good advise from this person.

          I've been doing this.  My lawyer said that victim-impact
          statements typically have little effect on the outcome of the
          board's decision.   Maybe this is the way it should be, since I
          am obviously not objective about Him being released, and the
          board has to make an objective, logical decision.

          >    I don't think they specifically pay as much attention
          >    to revenge as they should.  I would give any evidence
          >    of this that I had just the same.

          I have no evidence of this, unfortunately.  Perhaps I'm overly
          fearful of Him seeking revenge just because it's been happening
          more and more in my nightmares, which could be reinforcing the
          idea that He will acutally do so.

          >    In 99.29 you did not mention anything about the assault
          >    except that you still have one scar.  If I were you, I would
          >    describe the event in brutal detail.  I would want the
          >    members of the board to vividly picture what he did.

          Describing the event "in brutal detail" is something I've not
          been able to do since the trial.  The suggestion from a
          psychiatrist that reliving that experience was something I would
          need to do was what caused me to immediately abandon therapy.
          I know I need to do this, and I think sometime in the near future
          I will be strong enough to... but not this week... when I am not
          feeling particularly stable anyway.

          >    I would detail the injuries.  I would detail the pain, which
          >    includes mention of the things you listed unemotionally
          >    in 99.29,                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?

          Unemotionally?  Wow, did I ever fool you!  I was quite emotional
          when, after spending a few minutes/day for a couple days
          recalling all the "side effects", I looked at the list in its
          entirety.   But I know what you mean...  The fact that I could be
          unemotional and removed-from-myself when I was typing at my PC at
          night into this obscure medium called VAXnotes was what enabled
          me to first start writing about rape here in =wn=.

          So my efforts to be dispassionate about my experience are
          apparent in 99.29?   Thanks for that input - I can probably
          change 99.29 into paragraph form easily.

          >  but this time I would insert the intensity of pain and
          >  duration of suffering.  If your pain doesn't show in the
          >  letter, I think you will fail.  You need to build up empathy
          >  in them, and that is done through feelings not thoughts.

          I already have that part written (re: intensity of pain and
          duration of suffering, detailing the injuries sustained, etc.).

          >  Do you have any history of past offenses for this person.

          He had never been _convicted_ of a sexual offense before, but He
          had been arrested several times on "minor sexual offenses"
          (whatever that means).

          >  I would say as much as I can about these to begin to
          >  demonstrate how the rapist has not been rehabilitated in the
          >  past.

          I described the repeat nature of His behaviors, but I can't talk
          about 'rehabilitation' because He had never been convicted
          before.

          >  Has he said anything about what he would do in the future?

          No.  (and I try to use the capitalized form of the pronoun when
          referring to Him so as to not insult all other men who are
          commonly referred to by him or he.)

          >  Can you say anything about his lack of remorse or threats?

          Well, He certainly had no remorse at the time of the rape, and I
          would not count anonymous flowers He sent me after the rape as a
          sign of remorse, either.

          >  Lastly, can you get in touch with any past victims?

          Good idea!  I wish I had thought of it earlier.  I will see what
          I can do in the next 3 days.

          Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply.

                                                            nancy b.

    I watched the made for TV movie When He's not a stranger last night...
    
    I thought it was powerful, well done for a MFTV movie, and left me not
    being able to sleep well last night.
    
    Comments from those who did watch it?

    You know I thought I had a pretty good handle on woman's issues.
    When I was getting my degree I took two (count em 2) classes in
    woman's topics. The amazing thing to me is that two topics that
    I can't handle are abortion and rape. I used to think of rape as
    a police issue and being something of a redneck myself I could never
    buy the stories that blamed the criminal's action on my *.*;* and
    it was what caused me to do that crime. I picked up a novel recently
    named "Badge of Honor" which is apparently written by a policeman
    it reads like a Tom Clancey novel. Anyway the first incident in
    the book is about a fairly violent rape and the interview from the
    policeman, from the policeman's point of view. It was so horrifying
    real because it sounded just as it has been discribed in this
    conference. The police was discribing the chain of evidence, the
    Johnson rape kits the need for a very through interview with the
    victim and what she was going to have to go through. I hated reading
    it because it showed how powerless our society is at handling the
    most violent abuse people can do to one another. 
    
    "So," as all my customers ask me all day, "what are you going to
    do about it?" 
    
    1. I'm going to teach my children that rape is a horriable crime
    not a curiousity as it was viewed when I was growing up.
    
    2. I'm only going to vote for people who promise to build more jails
    and put criminals in them for the crimes they commit for as long
    as it takes those criminals to figure out that they shouldn't do
    whatever they did again.
    
    3. I'm going to hurt at stories like those in this conference. 
    
    Finally I'm sorry for dragging religon into this, but, if some of
    us are correct and there is a God all the lawyers games that these
    criminals used to avoid punishment in this life isn't going to work.
    They will pay for the crime they committed.
    
    Sorry for the rambling but I needed this,
    
    Fred Mudgett
                                                    
                                                    

          [I wrote this 2 weeks ago.  At the last minute, I decided to 
	   attend to the hearing myself.]

               I didn't really think they would let Him out.  I was afraid
          of His being released, but in my heart I really didn't think they
          would - after only 3 years.  So I don't care anymore.

               Reasons for His parole - His good behavior, overcrowding  -
          "other criminals have committed more serious crimes that need to
          be incarcerated much more than..."  (my listening between the 
	  lines ==> "...much more than ... someone who'e just committed 
	  rape once "), and He had a job lined up already.

               I passed out when I saw Him.  I wish I could remember what I
          was thinking at the time.  How ironic - I just realized as I
          write this and see if it still hurts when I touch my head,  that
          where I had a sore spot for 2 days was about the same location of
          the blow He inflicted which resulted in a concussion.

               He looked like He had aged over 10 years in 3.  He didn't
          look healthy.  His body looked weak, when I had expected Him to
          be much stronger from having so much time to do nothing but work-
          out in prison.  Maybe He's contracted AIDS; I can see him being
          called a "pretty boy" in prison.  One can only hope...   I wanted
          to tell Him about the AIDS tests I've taken two times a year (6
          total) since He raped me.  And that maybe I'll quit worrying
          about after 2 or so more tests w/ negative results (since I've
          read 3 years is the longest the virus can exist in sleep mode
          w/out producing antibodies that can be detected in the test).
          But that He probably has it.  I wanted to ask Him how many times
          He was raped in prison.  I wanted to tell Him how what He did is
          affecting my relationships with men now; how He has enormously
          decreased my capacity for trust and surrender with men I love,
          how those men suffer when I have violent nightmares.  Since He
          hates women, He wouldn't care about my side effects, but He might
          care about how what He did to me has affected other men.  nah...

               I read my victim impact statement with only the parole board
          present (it was almost an accident that I actually saw Him).  The
          spokesperson of the (all-male) parole board told me to "Get some 
	  counseling."  Though polite, the manner by which he addressed me 
	  was more conducive to eliciting a "f*ck you" under my breath than
          making me want to go out and "get some counseling."

               They made a condition (one of many) of His parole that He
          make monthly reparation payments to me.  My first reaction was
          [I'm not a prostitute, damn it].  When they said missing a pay-
          ment is grounds for having His parole revoked,  I remained
          silent. I'm having the payments sent to my lawyer for the time
          being, as I definitely don't want Him to know my address, nor do
          I want to see monthly reminders of this in my mailbox.

               I was very surprised that his release actually was a fore-
          gone conclusion, or so it seemed. I just didn't really believe in
          my heart they would let Him out after 3 years.  
          [since writing the above I've talked to my lawyer and another person 
           knowledgeable about parole-grant hearings, both who've indicated
	   the fact that He was there at all is a good indicator that the
	   decision was already made before the hearing]
	  

               I guess I should be enraged.  I just feel tired, and very
          defeated.

               After the hearing, my first desparate thoughts were how I
          could get the decision reversed.  I had a few ideas, but trashed
          them all. He would still get out eventually, no matter what I do.
          So I don't care.  But I am glad I attended the hearing.  I faced
          Him (well... I guess I can't say that too strongly since it was
          too much for me), and am now less fearful of Him.  And while I
          could detect absolutely no feeling of remorse or any emotion on
          His face when He saw me, it was useful to see His body debased by
          prison; His body and probably His mind corrupted...just as He 
	  vitiated mine over 3 years ago.  I went back to where it happened
          and cried for a while.

               I wonder if He still hates women and will rape again.

                                                            nancy b.

    I don't  have  the  strength to respond to most of the last reply,
    but  let  me  suggest  that you give the reparations to charity. A
    group  that  helps  victims  or a battered woman's shelter come to
    mind.  That way you don't profit, but he must make the payments or
    risk his parole.

--David

    Nancy - *hugs*  You have a great deal of strength - perhaps much more
    than you realize... 
    
    Linda

    I was going to make the same suggestion as David. If you pass the
    money on to a rape crisis center or battered women's shelter, it
    makes the "reparations" seem more like reparations than "blood
    money".
    
    --- jerry

    NOthing we can say will make you feel any better Nancy, but perhaps
    a hug would at least comfort you for the moment.
    
    You have the strength of a thousand horses, and that strength will
    guide you.  I only hope that my entry, as a male noter, doesn't come
    across as heartless or condensending (sp).  It os not ment that way, it
    is ment as support, nothing more.
    
    May your spiritual force guide you in this dificult time.
    
    AL

          re: .105 (David Wittenberg) & .107 (Jerry Boyajian)

          > but  let  me  suggest  that you give the reparations to
          > charity. A group  that  helps  victims  or a battered woman's
          > shelter come to mind.

               What a great idea!  Thanks, David and Jerry.

               Funny, I hadn't even given how I'd use the reparations much
          thought at all.  Wellll, to be totally honest,  on the airplane
          flight home, a really wicked thought crossed my mind, but that
          was about it.


          re:.106 (Linda Lust)

          >    -< *hugs* >-

               Thanks, Linda.

          re: .108 (Al Martin)

               Thanks, also, Al.

	  >  NOthing we can say will make you feel any better Nancy, 

	        Not true!  I am very influenced by the words of people
                I respect here.

							nancy b.

    RE:  .109


    Nancy,

    Remember to PAY ALL YOUR EXPENSES (i.e. doctor's, trips to
    parole board, lawyer, future therapy) BEFORE donating to a
    worthy charity.  Your right to not be out financially for
    any expenses incurred by this outrageous act against your
    person/life comes as the first charitable act that can be 
    generated from this fund.

    justme....jacqui
    

re: .110  (justme....jacqui)

>    Remember to PAY ALL YOUR EXPENSES (i.e. doctor's, trips to
>    parole board, lawyer, future therapy) BEFORE donating to a
>    worthy charity. 

     Yes, lawyers' (that's plural) fees have been non-trivial.

     Also, maybe to pay for a Model Mugging class.

     Or, maybe one of those new subcompact ultra-light 9mm 
     semi-auto hanguns accompanied by jacketed hollowpoints
     proceeded by a chambered Glaser safety-slug.
     Lorna and 'Ren, wanna go shopping :-) ?
    
   						   nancy b.

    
    Now you're talking, Nancy... !!!
    
    love your spunk,
    Marge

    Just what we need, another person running around with a semi-automatic
    gun.....
    
                       REK

    A revolver shoots just as fast.  A revolver is just as powerful (if not
    more).  A revolver is just as accurate.  What's so magical (read:
    fearsome) about a semi-automatic?
    
    Let's take it to the gun note from here.
    
    (with the offer, you remove your note and I'll remove mine...)
    
                              Roak

When you make the donation, don't forget the "matching gift form."

Now, if you really want to be nasty, you could make a donation to
a rape conselling center or battered woman's shelter IN HIS NAME,
so they send him a thank-you card every month.

On second thought, send the money in your name, and just think
about the thank-you card.

Martin.

    sorry, Nancy.
    
    Bud

          
          re: .116  (Martin Minow)
          
          >  Now, if you really want to be nasty, you could make a donation
          >  to a rape conselling center or battered woman's shelter IN HIS
          >  NAME, so they send him a thank-you card every month.
          
          ummmm - wicked awesome idea, Martin! (I can easily find out His
          address...)
          
          >  On second thought, send the money in your name, and just think
          >  about the thank-you card.
          
          nah... they say to always trust your first hunch :-).
          
          re: .117  (Bud Luebkert)
          
          >      -< There really isn't much justice >-
          
                  Maybe there will be, in the end.
          
                  BTW, my lawyer was able to get names and addresses of 2
          other women He had assaulted, but it took a lot longer than a
          couple of days (16 days to be exact) since their charges did not
          result in convictions. In retrospect, I really don't think it
          would have made a difference (but it was still a good idea).
          
                                                            nancy b.
          

	  I received a request to repost the last reply I put in topic
          847 in a new topic for further discussion.  I have decided
          to repost it as a reply here instead of starting a new topic.

	  I really didn't expect everyone to agree with what I said in the
          reply, but I would prefer to debate what I said here, in =wn=,
          and not to several different people via email.  For my reasons
          on that, please see reply .38 of this topic.

							   nancy b.

          re: 847.81 (Gale Kleinberger)

          While all of my messages to Gale concerning her ordeal have been
          offline so far, this part of her situation I wanted to publicly
          discuss:

             ("She" is Gale's daughter)
          >  She will live with her father after this, as she doesn't
          ** trust just living with me anymore.  She wants to be around a
          ** male for protection. I understand her reasoning, although I
          >  don't think her father could have done anymore than what I did
          >  when I heard her screams...

          I made it through all of Gale's note, the one containing the
          "Dear Baby" letter written by her daughter to the child of the
          rape,  without shedding a tear until I read that.  Then came many
          tears; tears of anger and of frustration.  Feelings not directed
          _towards_ her daughter; just at the situation itself:  Her
          daughter now wanting/feeling the need to be around a male for
          protection and subsequently rejecting her mother.

          Something I wrote down in my notebook when I was reading
          everything I could on the subject while preparing for the trial
          echoed in my mind...



                    "All men benefit because some men rape."


          I didn't understand it very well at the time, but it echoed in my
          mind as I read Gale's paragraph above, for Gale's ex is indeed
          benefitting because his daughter was raped.

          Not that I claim ignorance of this reaction or pretend I am/was
          "above it" - I am far more likely to make it through the night
          without nightmares if I am sleeping with a man.  I hate this
          side-effect which, in effect, makes me very dependant on men
          for having a normal day-to-day existence.

          In "Men on Rape", Timothy Beneke wrote,

               "It is painful but necessary to acknowledge the sense in
               which men benefit from violence against women.  Men compete
               with women in myriad ways, both professional and personal;
               the threats to women give men definite advantages.  It is
               sometimes said that men tolerate violence against women
               _because_ they benefit from it.

               ... How much longer will men accept as normal lives of
               constraint and abuse for women? "

                                                       nancy b.

    In other words, all we men are a few points up in the "winning
    through intimidation" game because some men rape. All the
    women I meet are already a few points down. 
    
    Those are points I could do without, even if intimidation were
    my game strategy.

    Dana (who doesn't care for an 'advantage' earned at the cost 
          of knowing that,according to statistics, one of my four 
          sisters will be raped.)

    As I see it, the problem is that there is no REAL PAINFUL PENALTY
    for rape, or for much other violent crime for that matter.  Some
    how, white collar crimes have become the only ones society takes
    seriously.  
    
    Bud

>    As I see it, the problem is that there is no REAL PAINFUL PENALTY
>    for rape

Painful?  Like how?  As far as I know, causing pain as punishment for
a crime is considered "cruel and unusual" and therefore it's use is only 
allowed against children in our society.  (Figure *that* one out!)

D!

    "cruel and unusual" in practice goes far beyond reason.  Our prisons
    don't work generally.  Sentences are too short unless for white
    collar crimes (a reversal from 50 years ago).  Prisoners have too
    many "rights" (they didn't have citizenship rights 50 years ago).
    Sentences are lies (50 years is 4 with good behavior).  We're too
    quick to say a prison is overcrowded.  I often say that a cell isn't
    full when there is still standing room. (Obviously exageration of
    my point)  Little penalty can be expected for further crimes behind
    bars, and there is too much freedom allowing such crimes.
    
    My point is that prison is not scary enough in terms of lost freedom
    for me to believe it helps as a deterrent.  Courts need a lot more
    streamlining to get criminals behind bars  (too many rapists and
    murderers do it again while awaiting trial).  
    
    People who do these things should, in justice, expect to be locked
    up in miserable conditions (but not conditions of further lawlessness)
    if they proceed with the crime.  Now they have a 90+% probability
    of getting off, and if they don't--prison isn't all that bad and
    doesn't take all that much time out of their lives.  Wrong message!
    
    "cruel and unusual" probably was never intended to mean not being
    able to play basket ball and have subscriptions to sexy magazines.
    The original concept most likely meant that we shouldn't horse whip
    them, throw them in a dark wet mud pit for a year, and feed them
    only rotten food with maggots crawling over it.  We go too far in
    making life comfortable for people who chose to deny life, health,
    possessions to someone else through force.
    
    Oh, I forgot to warn you not to read the last paragraph before lunch.
    Kinda graphic, but it describes my point fairly well.
    
    Bud

    I had hoped I would have been able to take some time to write this
    response and choose just the right words, but I wasn't, so I'll
    have to do it on the fly, even though I've been mulling this over
    for a few days.
    
    I want to respond to Nancy's premise of "All men benefit because some
    men rape."  This hit hard when I read it, but I purposely didn't
    respond immediately.  Something about the notion bothered me, and
    I wanted to figure out what it was.  And so I did.
    
    What was bothering me is that I don't believe the premise is valid.
    I don't even think it comes close to being true.  On the contrary,
    I feel strongly that:
    
    		"All men lose because some men rape"
    
    Now before I go any farther, I want to make sure that one thing is
    understood.  Some of you may have seen me say before that "life is
    not a zero-sum game".  What this means is that just because one
    group loses, that doesn't automatically mean the other group wins.
    And vice versa.  When rape is concerned, women lose AND men lose.
    
    The basic thing men lose because some men rape is trust - women's 
    trust.  Because some men rape, women always have to be suspicious
    of men, and this is a tremendous loss.  Men lose because they
    can't do something nice for a woman without having their motives
    scrutinized.  Men lose because the element of suspicion places
    a barrier between them and women, a barrier that is often hard
    to overcome.
    
    But more to the point, men lose because they see their friends and
    loved ones hurt and scarred and even killed due to rape.  Men lose
    because no matter how decent they are, or how well they treat
    women, they are, by necessity, tarred by the acts of a few.
    
    I can't deny that there may be some men out there who think that the
    existence of rape keeps women "in their place".  But I feel that any
    "benefit" these particular men believe they have received is
    vastly outweighed by the loss sustained by men in general.  The loss
    of a world free of the horror of rape.
    
    It may be, in some way, comforting to search for villains, to assign
    the blame to the generic "men".  But by doing so, one only drives
    the wedge further, and in the end, makes the problem worse.  To
    end rape, we must develop a society where women and men don't view
    the other sex as "the enemy".  I wish this could happen tomorrow.
    
    
    This didn't come out as eloquent as I would have liked.  But here
    it is.
    
    				Steve

          
          Note 525.126 (Steve Lionel)
          
               >    I feel strongly that:
          
               >    "All men lose because some men rape"
          
          No.   Men, as a class (a group?) in the hierarchy of our society,
          benefit since women are subordinated and made dependent upon
          others through rape and the threat of male-violence.
          
          Specific individuals within that group may indeed lose -  be it
          because they are close to a woman who's been raped, because they
          unwantingly invoke fear in a woman who they just happen to be
          walking behind in a parking garage, etc...  But this loss does
          not negate or lessen the advantage that rape and the threat of
          violence in general gives men in maintaining male dominance and
          female subordination in gender relations.
          
          >    It may be, in some way, comforting to search for villains,
          >    to assign the blame to the generic "men".
          
          I did _NOT_ write 847.94 to find "comfort" in "searching for
          villains".  Who needs a "search" to determine that men are
          responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crimes
          committed against women?  One could glance over any year's FBI
          Uniform Crime Reports to verify.  I find no comfort in that
          truth.
          
          The purpose of 847.94 where I said "All men benefit because some
          men rape" (which was written in my notes from something I read 3+
          years ago), was
          
          1) To broaden the context by which we conceptualize violence
          against women.  ... To look upon the concept of male power in
          gender relations as a tool by which female subordination is
          maintained.
          
          2) To explore one reason why violence against women has only
          became an issue in the recent past (IMHO due largely to loud
          Feminist voices in the 70's that raised public awareness)
          
          >  But by doing so, one only drives the wedge further, and in the
          >  end, makes the problem worse.
          
          How could furthering the understanding of how complex societal
          interactions relate to male violence against women make the
          problem worse?
          
          >  To end rape, we must develop a society where women and men
          >  don't view the other sex as "the enemy".
          
               You are saying that the root cause of rape is women and men
          viewing the opposite gender as the enemy?   Half of this is:
          
               Myth # 99999 - if women would just somehow change their
          behaviours, thoughts, or actions, men would stop raping; that
          women are somehow capable of provoking sexual violence from men
          by "feelings", by their "views".
          
               Dream on.
                                                       nancy b.
          

    Since what Nancy wrote (and Steve's response) was an outcome of what I
    said, or what my daughter said/did, then perhaps maybe I should inject
    something here. (perhaps not, but with the mood I'm in...)

    I do agree that with Becky's case, a man did benefit. My daughter
    would be with me now if the whole ordeal did not happen. Period.
    But there isn't anything I can do about it now, so, we are just moving
    forward.  She is going to come visit me for a week this month, which is
    more than she could have done 6 months ago, so progress is taking
    place. Then again, maybe its not, as she might get here, and then
    decide its too much on her emotional system, and have to go right back.
    That's a step we'll take one day (moment?) at a time.

    As for the comment about men in total. I'm not sure whether to say
    *all* men or not is a true statement.  I really try not to lump
    EVERYONE into one blanket.  I do know that I am now frightened whenever
    I hear a sound in a house. I know that if I have to walk to my car in
    what to everyone else should look like a VERY safe place, but to my
    mind is not, I am scared to do it. I know I am scared when I have to
    stay in a place all by myself that I am unsure of the environment.
    However, this is also not just dedicated to what happened to Becky. I
    know of several people who have had some bad luck in the not so distant
    past, involving criminals of different sorts, and this has brought out
    a lot of those fears. 

    I think the one thing that does benefit is society - but only parts of
    them. Model mugging (is that the name of it Nancy?) is one of them...
    more woman pay to go through the classes, so they can feel like they can
    protect themselves, that cost $$. People move to apartments that are
    safer and cost more $$ than average to feel safer, or people put in
    alarm systems, and pay to have them hooked into the police department
    each month, costing $$, or people pay for extra insurance to guard
    against whatever they feel needing to be guarded against...  all this
    cost $$, so society as a whole benefits, and people as a sub-set lose
    money that they would have otherwise directed those $$ to elsewhere.

    I don't think there is anything that can be done. Men and Women are
    going to rape, steal, and even murder. This is a fact that no matter
    what you or I do or say is going to change. What we can do is educate
    ourselves, protect ourselves, and move forward. If we don't move
    forward, we will not grow, and if we don't grow, we allow ourself to be
    vulnerable for attack.

    
    If there was any way to rephrase the statement to include Steve's
    statements while still recognizing Nancy's, one could say the
    following:
    
    	"The recognition of the male gender's general superiority in
    strength, power and, sometimes, ability to protect, is always
    re-inforced when a female is raped by a male."
    
    This does not deny the fact that a man may feel bad when a woman he
    loves is raped. But it recognizes something that our ever increasingly
    intellect-dominated society cannot ignore. Men typically have a
    physical edge on women. Some use it to protect women. Some use it to
    hurt women.
    
    And its not going to go away tomorrow.

Ummm... might it not be possible that we as men gain *and* lose because of the
existence of rape?  That, as Steve says, every man who is not a rapist loses
because he *cannot avoid* being seen as "a man who might rape" (quite aside
from the more personal losses)?  And, as Nancy says, even though we didn't
ask for it and don't want it, we men *do* receive a socio-economic edge
from the suppression of women that the threat of rape acomplishes?

Suppose that my country invades another country.  I may not be involved in
the war.  I may even be actively opposed to it.  But if my country achieves
an economic advantage in consequence, I cannot help but benefit by it.  And
who say that it is unjust, or even unrealistic, if the victims in the invaded
country see me as one of the enemy?

    I'm finding it difficult to put my thoughts into words here, but
    let me take a shot at it anyway.  I have a think that the idea that
    "All men benefit because some men rape" may be simultaneously true
    and false, the key word being "benefit".
    
    I believe the statement is true in the sense that Nancy and others
    have used - men, as a class, have gained a socio-political edge by 
    intimidation.  And this is apparently a benefit.  But I wonder if
    it's not a matter of "winning the battle and losing the war".  If
    our continued survival as a species on an increasingly endangered
    planet hinges on the integration and co-operation of all people,
    then perhaps the dominance of one class over another will, in the
    end, prove to be a disastrous detriment.
    
    In similar fashion, Gale mentioned some "benefits" to society in
    terms of revenue generated by this situation.  But if the costs of
    those "benefits" is to drive us into greater fear, suspicion, and
    isolation as a race of beings, perhaps the cost of those monetary
    benefits is far too dear.  
    
    I keep wondering if a patriarchal society doesn't represent a kind
    of Pyrhic victory, the losses from which are only now beginning to
    dawn on us. 
    
    Steve

>Ummm... might it not be possible that we as men gain *and* lose because of the
>existence of rape?
    
    Neil- thanks for saying what had appeared to me to be obvious (but
    can't be because not everyone noticed). I think a fair case can be made
    that men in general "gain" a sort of fear induced respect from women
    whenever a man physically overpowers a woman. Such an overpowering
    cannot be denied and so really seems to get attention. And yet, at the
    same time, men lose the respect borne out of trust whenever one
    individual rapes another. And this gain and the loss certainly do not
    cancel one another out; they twist the male-female relationship
    further. And in that way, we all lose.
    
    The Doctah

	 RE: men gaining and losing from rape




	 I'd also like to say that "women gain and lose from being
	 raped" as well, but I would be flogged by many noters in
	 here, so I just attempt to keep my mouth shut on this
	 subject.



	 I agree totally.....men gain AND lose from rape.


	 kath

    re .133:
    
    Well, you did say something in your note, so I'd like to
    know how you think women can possibly *benefit* from rape.
    
    
    
    re "all men benefit when a woman is raped", and Steve Mallett's
    (and a couple other men's) comments:
    
    Well put - I understand how you see a "loss" for men also.
    

	re: .133  (Kathy Gallup)

	>  I'd also like to say that "women gain and lose from being
	>  raped" as well, 

	How do women gain from rape? 

							nancy b.

    
.133>    Well, you did say something in your note, so I'd like to
.133>    know how you think women can possibly *benefit* from rape.
    
    

    Just a thought...  there are men who have been raped by women. Isn't it
    possible that those men might have the same feelings as a woman does,
    only now reversing the sexes? If so, then if what is said about men
    holds true, then the opposite would hold true in this case, and 
    women would be gaining in that scenario, right?    
     
    Although I don't know what Kathy is thinking, when I was writing up my
    last reply, I tried to incorporate this thought pattern into it.

>    Just a thought...  there are men who have been raped by women. Isn't it
>    possible that those men might have the same feelings as a woman does,
>    only now revering the sexes? 

Doesn't seem likely.  A specific man might feel the same way about being
raped as a specific woman...but I don't think the reinforcing of the current
hierarchy (which Nancy is calling a "benefit") or even the raising of women
in that hierarchy happens when a woman rapes a man.  Much of the so-called
"benefit" that comes from a man raping a woman is that it happens so often
that women are (justifiable) afraid of it happening again.  I think female
rape of men happens so seldom that the general man's views and fears are
not affected by that rape.

I guess what it comes down to is there is some threshold frequency (or
at least expectability) with which something must happen in a society, before
the fear (or expectance) of it happening really has an affect on that
society (or portion thereof.)  Women raping men is so rare that men don't
learn to fear rape by women, therefore it doesn't "benefit" women.

Also, it might be said along the lines that when one group is in "competition"
with another, that any act(s) which cause one group to be divided, lose
confidence in themselves, seek protection or feel afraid is a "benefit" to
the other group (in the context of the competition.)  In other words, men
would also benefit from *women raping women* (hypothetically).

D!

    re: Kathy's comments
    
    Kathy is more than able to speak for herself...but a few possible
    ideas:
    
    perhaps women/a woman gains from rape by becoming more assertive,
    less docile.
    or by being more careful/alert---Nancy, would you have ever
    considered carrying a weapon BEFORE the rape?  
    or perhaps you've learned you're stronger than you thought, and
    you respect yourself and your own strenghts more..
    
    now, those are MINIMAL gains for such a dear price, and I doubt
    I could justify them to anyone....nor would I want to...too bad
    in such a society as we have everyone wants it to be a win-win
    situation, and all to often its lose-lose.
    
    say, are the latest statistics near 50% of all women will be
    assaulted at some point in their life?  seems I read that
    recently.
    
    deb
    

RE:	>  I'd also like to say that "women gain and lose from being
RE:	>  raped" as well, 

>	How do women gain from rape? 


	 Well, in all actuality, my statement should actually say
	 "women gain and lose from rape" because women who haven't
	 been raped can still gain from those that have.


	 How?  I'm like to sit down and really formulate an acceptable
	 note about this (because it could be considered a very
	 delicate subject), but I don't have the time...

	 So here goes.


	 Women can benefit from rape by

         1.  The more rape continues to happen, the more the general
         public and the justice system become aware that this is a
         serious problem.  Sentences for rapes in the future will (and
         are now) become more harsh.  Women that are raped are fast
         becoming seen as victims instead of a while ago when they
         were merely viewed as "asking for it" or that it was "his
         right."

	 2.  Rapes have caused high-rape areas to be watched more
	 carefully by police, the threat of rape has started many
	 "escort services" on college campuses and have significantly
	 lowered the rape rate on many of them.

	 3.  Raped women become more aware that their personal
	 protection is important--they no longer believe the old
	 adage, "that can't happen to me."  They become more conscious
	 of what they can do to protect themselves in any given
	 scenario.

	 4.  Because of the ever-growing threat of date rape
	 prosecutions, men are beginning to think twice about pushing
	 a woman. ("you know you want it, baby.")

	 5.  Woman that have NOT been raped are becoming more aware of
	 the places and the situations they need to avoid.  They are
	 becoming aware that someone won't always be there to protect
	 them...that they have to protect themselves.

	 6.  A rapist is fast becoming abhored within the walls of
	 prison.  Rapists not only suffer thru sentences, they suffer
	 other ways as well.  Society is become SO MUCH MORE aware of
	 how abhorant rape is.


	 I've been raped, twice...one succeeded in violating me, one
	 did not (so, technically, you could call it attempted rape).
	 Yes, I suppose it has severely effected my ability to
	 show/feel real emotion; yes, it severely hampers my ability
	 to trust men whom I care about.  But MORE than that, it has
	 benefitted me by making me much more aware of the hazzards of
	 life....it has made me much more aware that in ONE VERY
	 IMPORTANT way, women are NOT equal to men (strength), and
	 that to make that more equal, I need to take action of my
	 own.  It has made me more aware that no one is going to be
	 there for me, but myself.

	 Perhaps I can deal with my rape(s) more because I've learned
	 that they are an act of violence, something that happened to
	 me, that is now OVER.  Something I can avoid in the
	 future...Something that has caused me to become strong enough
	 to know how to keep a level head if it happens again and
	 strong enough to fight back.



	 The fact is, the way our society functions, rape WILL happen.
	 That is a fact of our society, but by gaining some good out
	 of each rape, some knowledge, we can build a better future
	 for ourselves and our children by heightening awareness.

	 Let something good rise from the bad.

	 The benefits of rape will never come NEAR to outweighing the
	 detriments, but the benefits still exist.

	 A woman's place is fast becoming NOT the home....and the
	 outside world is a very rough and tumble place....women are
	 becoming aware, thru rape that they need to protect themself
	 in that world.

	 My rapes are in my past....they still effect me and my
	 feelings and emotions, but they also make me more aware, and
	 help me to help others to become more aware.

	 I consider this to be a benefit to women from rape.


	 kath

re .139,

To me, a "benefit" of a phenomenon is a sense in which someone is better off
because of the phenomenon.

Thus, to me it makes no sense to describe increased awareness / caution /
societal intolerance of rape as a "benefit" of rape, since if rape didn't
exist at all, there would be no need for those things.  Indeed, I would 
describe the need for those things, the fact they can be seen as "benefits"
at all, as one of the *costs* of rape.  Why should women *have* to be more
aware of dangerous situations?

An analogy:  Consider an earthquake.  A boom for the local construction
industry might be regarded as a benefit of the earthquake (for the 
construction industry) -- someone gets business that they wouldn't have
had if there hadn't been an earthquake.  But increased awareness of the
need for earthquake safety is not a benefit, but a cost, of the earthquake --
it diverts economic resources that could be used somewhere else, and there
would have been no need for it if the earthquake hadn't occurred.

	-Neil

    re _men_ losing:
    
    Feeling untrusted by those they love.
    Afraid to say or do something upsetting, that might hurt--especially
    since it came from a man.( That care caused me to write cautiously
    and apologize for potential pain to Nancy.  She replied that she
    was strong and could take it, but I still didn't feel good/felt
    her defenses were up in defense from me.  I'm not convinced that
    my candor didn't hurt.  I believe that I/men lost because of her
    assault.
    
    re _women_ winning:
    
    Extra attention/doting/tender loving from their SO (which is sometimes
        thrown back for reasons above= both lose)
    
    
    I believe that the "men losing" is far more real than men winning,
    just as I believe that "women losing" is far more real than women
    winning.  In other words, the truth is that both lose with exceptions.
    
    Bud

>       <<< Note 525.140 by MOIRA::FAIMAN "light upon the figured leaf" >>>

>To me, a "benefit" of a phenomenon is a sense in which someone is better off
>because of the phenomenon.

	 I am better off because of it.
	 
>Thus, to me it makes no sense to describe increased awareness / caution /
>societal intolerance of rape as a "benefit" of rape, since if rape didn't
>exist at all, there would be no need for those things.


	 If ANY crime did not exist, there would be no need for these
	 things.

	 Rape is crime, just like murder, burglary, extortion, etc,
	 that will NOT be eliminated out of our society in the coming
	 years.

	 I view my gains in my personal safety to be a benefit from my
	 rape.  My rape resulted in something GOOD, however bad it
	 was, something good did come out of it.

	 I no longer feel I am "immune" to anything.
	 


	 I consider that to be a benefit......as well as the other
	 "benefits" I stated.

	 but then again, it's all a matter of opinion how we each view
	 anything, isn't it?

	 kath

Kath, I think what Niel is trying to say is that it doesn't make much
sense to call something a benefit, when the only reason that thing is a
benefit is because of the *existence* of the negative.

Your benefits are real, but they are benefits (it trouble me to write
that word in this context, but bear with me) of *your* rape.  Or of some
particular woman's rape. But not of the *existence* of rape.

Nancy's statement that "all men benefit because some men rape", is really
saying that mankind (and I mean that exclusively) benefits from the
*existence* of rape (at least, that of man against woman.)  The statement
implies that in some way, Men are *better* of with the existence of rape in
our society than it's nonexistence.

Except for .4 in your list, all of your "possible benefits" would not be
benefits at all if rape simply didn't exist.  The benefits are *dependent*
on the existence of rape, so it doesn't make sense to call them benefits
*of* the existence of rape.

I don't see that Womankind is in any way better off from the existence of
rape.  I can see how Mankind might be better off (in some ways) from the
existence of rape.  

You see the difference?  You are talking about ways in which individual 
women (however many) can benefit from rape (either theirs or others) in a
world in which rape is a reality, but Nancy is talking about how Mankind
benefits from the fact that rape is a reality.

D!

	 D!
	 
>Kath, I think what Niel is trying to say is that it doesn't make much
>sense to call something a benefit, when the only reason that thing is a
>benefit is because of the *existence* of the negative.

	 I don't understand how, if what you say here is true, how
	 men can "benefit" whereas woman cannot.

	 The *existence of the negative* is always there, regardless
	 of the gender it is effecting.


	 kath

	 


	 

          
          re: .128 (Gale Kleinburger)
          
          |  I don't think there is anything that can be done. Men and   |
          |  Women are going to rape, steal, and even murder.  This is a |
          |  fact that no matter what you or I do or say is going to     |
          |  change.                                                     |
          
          Often I think that way too.  But from reading the studies Liesl
          described in 880.57, maybe it doesn't have to be that way
          forever.      Listen to this (emphasis below is mine):
          
               "Almost half of the reports (47%) Sanday studied were rape-
               free societies with sexual assault "absent or...rare"
               
               Sanday's conclusion "Rape is *not* inherent in men's nature
               but results from their _image_ of that nature". It is a
               product of a certain set of beliefs, which in turn derive
               from particular social circumstances. Male dominance serves
               its purpose."
               
               [Liesl's conclusion on the studies]
               ...found the conclusion comforting. Men don't have to rape
               and we can prevent it for future generations by changing the
               attitudes of our society. Looks like the tack of breaking
               down the "for men only" aspects of society is the right
               direction to go.
          
          I found that research (and Liesl's conclusion) quite uplifting.
          
          Maybe it _will_ be different for future generations of females.
          
          Maybe change will occur quicker than I think, given the
          phonemenal rate of change occurring in the world right now.
          
          That's not a certainty, though.
          
          The only certainty in 1989 is the need for Model Mugging,
          firearms for self-defense, women constraining their activities so
          that they are not in the wrong place at the wrong time, women
          constraining their body language, verbal language, and choice of
          clothing so as not to be provocative enough to invoke male
          violence, etc....
                                                       nancy b.
                              

          re: .131 (Steve Mallett)
          
          Steve, I think you're on to something here !!!!
          
          Your reply really made me stop and rethink what I said in terms
          of what is true-for-now vs what could be true-for-the-future.
          
          You said:
          
               -----------------------------------------------------------
                   I have a think that the idea that "All men benefit
               because some men rape" may be simultaneously true and false,
               the key word being "benefit".
               
                   I believe the statement is true in the sense that Nancy
               and others have used - men, as a class, have gained a socio-
               political edge by intimidation.  And this is apparently a
               benefit.  But I wonder if it's not a matter of "winning the
               battle and losing the war".  If our continued survival as a
               species on an increasingly endangered  planet hinges on the
               integration and co-operation of all people, then perhaps the
               dominance of one class over another will, in the end, prove
               to be a disastrous detriment.
               
                   I keep wondering if a patriarchal society doesn't
               represent a kind of Pyrhic victory, the losses from which
               are only now beginning to dawn on us.
               ------------------------------------------------------------
          
          While I still believe that male violence currently benefits and
          has been benefitting men as a class as another means by which the
          status quo is maintained, I think I am beginning to understand
          what you mean above by "Pyrrhic victory."
          
          I'm interested in this, and would appreciate any further
          illuminations on this facet of the argument you (and/or others
          who understand what Steve said) could provide.
                                                            nancy b.
          

          re: .132 (the Doctah)
          
          >   men in general "gain" a sort of fear induced respect from
          >   women whenever a man physically overpowers a woman.
          
              Good, applicable term   ==>   "fear-induced respect"
          
              I think this is true in many more cases than "_whenever_ a
          man physically overpowers a women".  I.e., female to male fear-
          induced respect occurs frequently outside of the actual event of
          a man physically overpowering a woman.
          
          >   And this gain and the loss certainly do not cancel one
          >   another out; they twist the male-female relationship further.
          >   And in that way, we all lose.
          
              Agreed.
                                                                 nancy b.
          

          re: .138  (Deb Alford)
          
          >    Nancy, would you have ever considered carrying a weapon
          >    BEFORE the rape?
          
               Never.
          
               I was afraid of guns. I thought they were only for cowboy-
          types or bambi-killer hunters or macho, uneducated, uncivilized
          men.     I was "above" that.    It wasn't until I researched the
          statistics on successful methods of self-defense that considered
          touching a gun.   Since then, I've also come to understand the
          philosophical importance of gun-ownership by a country's law-
          abiding citizens.
          
          >    or perhaps you've learned you're stronger than you thought,
          
               No.  I learned I was physically weaker than I thought
          relative to the average male (at a time when I was at peak
          strength and fitness; when I was really "into" weightlifting,
          basketball, water polo, football-on-the-quad, etc.)  I learned
          that men who rape are likely to know how to successfully counter
          the classic self-defense maneuvers taught to women in those
          sessions that the typical college might sponsor for female
          students.
          
          >    and you respect yourself and your own strenghts more..
          
               No.   I respect my body much less, and am absolutely pissed
          off that women are physically weaker than men.
               
                                                                 nancy b.
                              

          
          re: .139  (Kathy Gallup)
          
          kath, when you wrote:
          
          >   "women gain and lose from being raped" as well,
          
          ...my interpretation was that you were implying that "_women_",
          women as a _class_ or _group_, somehow gained because some women
          are raped (and all straining of my imagination could not come up
          with one such example).
          
          My interpretation of what you _said_ was further reinforced as
          being what you _meant_ after reading:
          
          >  women who haven't been raped can still gain from those that
          >  have
          
          Though I disagree that this is the case, and don't see your #1,
          #2, or #5 as true benefits for women as a group _or_ women who
          have not been raped,   I agree that there can be some positive
          "side effects" on _individual_ rape victims, like your #3 (more
          aware of importance of personal protection).
          
          >     Let something good rise from the bad.
          
          I've described before in 812.13, "Problems Arising Out of an
          Assault", some potentially positive outcomes of being raped:
          
                    ------------------------------------------------
                    Some positive side effects of her rape could be:
          
                    o  independent/mentally stronger
                    o  feminist attitudes
                    o  becoming closer to women
                    o  knowledge that she has the right to control her own
                       body
                    o  aware of risks for herself and her daughters
                    o  determined to avoid coercive sex
                    -------------------------------------------------
          
          >     The benefits of rape will never come NEAR to outweighing
          >     the detriments, but the benefits still exist.
          
          Yea - here are some detriments (also from 812.13):
          [ kath, wanna add to the list? ]
          
                    -------------------------------------------------
                    Some negative side effects of her rape could be:
          
                    o  distrust of men
                    o  affected attitude to sex
                    o  flashbacks
                    o  dreams/nightmares
                    o  cues which remind her of rape
                    o  vulnerability/fear
                    o  insecurity
                    o  breakdown linked to assault
                    o  negative effect on education
                    o  losing custody of children   (sound familiar Gale?)
                    o  fear of challenging men
                    o  suicide attempt
                    o  loss of security and safety
                    o  expecting coercive sex
                    o  linking sex to being used
                    o  using sex as revenge
                    o  loss of self-respect
                    o  self-blame
                    o  confusion between love/sex/affection
                    o  not being able to cope with images of violence
                    o  more vulnerable to later abuse
                    o  attempts to bury the memory and suppress the
                       feelings it evokes;  denial
                    o  difficulty in relaxing during sex
                    o  having sex trigger memories of the rape
                    o  becoming promiscuous or frigid/celibate
                       (and I guess I'm using the male-defined connotations
                        of 'frigid' and 'promiscuous')
                    -------------------------------------------------------
          
          >      -< FWIW >-
          
          Alot.  Thanks for replying, kath.
          
                                                       nancy b.
          

          re: .141  (Bud Luebkert)
          
          >  re _women_ winning:
          >  Extra attention/doting/tender loving from their SO
          
          This is *not* my reality -
          
          My SO of two years did not find me attractive after the rape
          and wouldn't do anything physical with me at a time when I
          desperately wanted to be touched and reassured.  He broke up
          with me within 2 months.
                                                       nancy b.
          

    I appreciate both Neil's (.130) and Steve's (.131) notes as they
    managed to say what I'd been thinking inside and didn't quite know
    how to express. I understood (and agreed with) what Steve Lionel
    was trying to say in his refutation of Nancy's statement, but I
    also understood (and agreed with) what Nancy was trying to say in
    her original statement.
    
    --- jerry

If one's premise if that all men want to dominate and control women,
then I agree with the statement that rape and violence against women
benefits all men.  Perhaps a better way of saying this is:  men that
want to dominate and control women benefit by rape and violence
against women.

I don't think that all men want to control and dominate women.

However, it is a very insideous thing.  Unfortunately our training as
men in adolescent is very bad.  Rape is just  this training taken to
the extreme.  But the messages you get in the playground and locker
are not very pleasant and the message is that women are objects for
sex and not to be respected otherwise.  This conditioning is very hard
to overcome and I'd guess women have a different set of conditioning
that is equally difficult to overcome.  Even after adolescence, these
messages continue in the media and thru our peers.

Those men that are not aware of this and still buy into the
conditioning, even though they benifit, by their own measure by rape
and violence, are in my view, impoverished in the long run by missing
out on a real emotional and spiritual life and seeing all beings for
that our regardless of gender differences.  An interesting question
for me is how to help with this situation.  One of my beleifs is that
all being are endowed with the capability to be aware and enlightened
beings but this is hidden and obsured by images, ideas, conditioning,
and ignorance.  So how do you get thru and make a difference to these
men and to their victims?

john

    John, you remind me of something I used to hear about in terms of the
    (I think) whore/Madonna complex.
    
    How do males reconcile their images of their sisters and mothers,
    typically not thought of sexually, (and do throw in grandmothers!) with
    other women, whom you say they are taught on the playground to think of
    as objects.
    
    I've heard that some men get very protective of their sisters, simply
    because they don't want some other man doing what they know that THEY
    THEMSELVES are doing to other women. And I've seen some men get pretty
    messed up when they see their mothers get abused by their fathers.
    
    Maybe this is something to take to mennotes. Its certainly something I
    can't fathom.

Kath,

>	 I don't understand how, if what you say here is true, how
>	 men can "benefit" whereas woman cannot.

Hmmm...do you understand the difference between an effect of an action
being independent of the existence of that action?  As in, the effect is
a benefit, where the nature of the benefit has nothing to do with the
action?  There are really, logically two seperate things going on here,
and I'm not sure if you see that.

>	 The *existence of the negative* is always there, regardless
>	 of the gender it is effecting.

Forget gender for a moment.  The trick is to take the "existence" as
a conditional clause to test for the independence of the result.  Let us
say that X causes Y.  Is Y a "benefit of X"?  Well, if Y, by itself, would
still be a positive if "X" were untrue, then yes.  If "Y" ceases to be
a benefit if "X" is untrue, then one can't really call "Y" a benefit of
"X", because the beneficial nature of "Y" is dependent on "X".

(In this case, of couse, X=the existence of rape, and Y=[list of possible
benefits].)

I can't give any better example then Niel's earthquake example, how some
benefits are independent of the existence of earthquakes (increased business
for contructon companies) and some are dependent on earthquakes (increased
awareness of the dangers of earthquakes.)  If you don't understand that, there
isn't much better I can do.

D!

>    Note 525.149 Nancy
          
>          Yea - here are some detriments (also from 812.13):
>          [ kath, wanna add to the list? ]

	 �  lack of ability to feel emotion during intimacy/sex
	 �  never REALLY relaxing anymore (especially during intimacy)



	 I didn't feel 1/2 the things on your list, so I suppose it
	 has a lot to do with the circumstances surrounding each
	 individual incident, plus the attitude the woman takes toward
	 it afterwards.

	 There are many ways, I'm sure that one woman might pay dearly
	 and another might not, and vice versa.


	 kath

RE:  .153 (ren)  whore/madonna complex in relation to mother/sisters

I'm not really sure.  I think that I somehow escaped a lot of the
playground attitudes but I would guess that the social taboo against
incest is strong enough to allow a division between family and
non-family in most cases.  Also, you do have a special long term
relationship with your siblings and parents whereas someone you don't
know is easily objectified.  I'm always amazed at the thoughts, ideas,
and conclusions we come up in the absence of real information and
contact.

>    How do males reconcile their images of their sisters and mothers,
>    typically not thought of sexually, (and do throw in grandmothers!) with
>    other women,
    
    Boy, does that get to the bone! It isn't easy. In fact, it leads to
    some people having problems, severe problems, with women as a result.
    
    One aspect of the problem seems to be related to peer pressure for guys
    to have sex with as many women as possible as a show of masculinity or
    whatever. The competition is intense. Unfortunately, the majority of
    the participants seem not to know _why_ they are doing what they are
    doing except for the fact that _everyone else is doing it_. Gotta
    measure up. Gotta be a "man."
    
    Another impact is that of parents and religion saying that having sex
    is "bad." So many guys start to feel guilty after they have convinced a
    girl to have sex with them, so they then want to get away. Others
    simply feel that the only "interesting" girl is one with whom you
    haven't had sex with yet. After all, a conquest is a conquest, right?
    Why climb a mountain the second time with these other peaks
    unconquered?
    
    Many guys know what the effect of their attitude and actions is on the
    females involved, but are unable to deal with the guilt and/or
    embarassment of what they have done. So they instead get extremely
    protective of their sisters. "I wouldn't want that to happen to her."
    They channel the nurturing feelings which they do not know how to deal
    with towards their sisters, etc, because they already know how to do
    that.
    
    The Doctah
    

    I _know_ it's already been answered, but...
    
    The idea that women receive extra TLC in the wake of a rape just
    doesn't pass muster!
    
    I was fortunate. My SO was pretty wrecked himself, but he stuck with me
    and was unfailingly himself ... nothing extra, just himself.  [That's
    what I needed]
    
    The woman who performed my exam most likely received her MD from the
    Marquis de Sade Mail-Order Med School.
    
    Other women in my life began to regard me as a Fear-Object and treated
    me with the contempt and loathing one reserves for garden slugs
    suddenly found in a birthday cake.  [after all I wasn't anywhere risky
    and with an old and dear friend and IT happened to me, maybe it could
    happen to them...oh, but that's scary...don't look, don't
    touch...icky,icky,slimy creature!!!!]
    
    Now, I can say that I came out of my experience of rape and the
    aftermath much stronger [I had to be] and less naive. I sustained no
    lasting physical damage and time dealt with the Slug-Effect as the
    denial of other women caused my ordeal and the pain they experienced as
    a result to fade from memory.  Indeed after awhile I became an Icon of
    Resiliency for fighting back to health after my Horrible Ordeal.
    
    But on balance, I would still prefer not to have been raped no matter
    what the benefit I derived.  The price was too high.
    
    I paid it and its over [mostly] and I am no Icon.  Merely a woman who
    chose to survive.  [I suppose I could have chosen to end it all
    honorably and become the Tragic Victim, but even in the depths of my
    depression that struck me as horse-pucky]
    
      Ann

>    The idea that women receive extra TLC in the wake of a rape just
>    doesn't pass muster!
    
    Hmmm. Interesting. I know I tried to be especially careful, gentle and
    supportive when I found out about my girlfriend's rape.
    
>    Other women in my life began to regard me as a Fear-Object and treated
>    me with the contempt and loathing one reserves for garden slugs
>    suddenly found in a birthday cake.
    
    If I was somewhat surprised at the former, this one really throws me. I
    can't for the life of me imagine why it would be so. Comprehension
    failure- go to auxiliary information gathering...
    
>    But on balance, I would still prefer not to have been raped no matter
>    what the benefit I derived.  The price was too high.
    
    I can't imagine that too many women would disagree with you.
    
    The Doctah

    It's been a few days since I've gotten back here, and I'm glad to see
    the discussion going the way it is.  As I suspected, I was less than
    eloquent in my wording, but Steve Mallet and Neil Faiman made up for
    my lack.
    
    I was indeed trying to say that, while looked at narrowly, there
    may be "gains" for some men given the existence of rape, the losses
    completely overwhelm them in my view.  And, for me, none of the
    supposed "gains" for men are considered a gain by me.   From my
    perspective, there are only losses for all concerned.
    
    
    Nancy, in .127 you took part of my response and extrapolated the
    following:
    
          
          >>  To end rape, we must develop a society where women and men
          >>  don't view the other sex as "the enemy".
          >
          >     You are saying that the root cause of rape is women and men
          > viewing the opposite gender as the enemy?   Half of this is:
          >
          >     Myth # 99999 - if women would just somehow change their
          > behaviours, thoughts, or actions, men would stop raping; that
          > women are somehow capable of provoking sexual violence from men
          > by "feelings", by their "views".
          >
          >     Dream on.
          
    
    I was disappointed by this, because if you had taken the "other half",
    wondering about men changing their views, I think you might have
    supported the notion.  I don't think it was fair to split my
    statement and attribute a non-existent attitude to me based on it.
    
    However, I then came upon your note 525.145, which, in my view, has
    you supporting my position.
    
    
    This should make some interesting possible conversation at the party.
    I won't be able to get back in here before that, I'm sure.
    
    				Steve

	Called the IRS Q&A number at (800)424-1040 to see if the reparation
	payments I receive is taxable income. The person said that according
	to Publication 525, page 14 (which he is mailing me):

	o "Compensatory payments" are not taxable.  This applies to payment(s)
	  received for specific expenses incurred.  For example, had He been
	  ordered to reimburse me for the hospital expense (which I paid in
	  full myself even though I had insurance because I didn't want my 
	  parents finding out about it from the insurance company), that 
	  money would be not taxable.  What the IRS calls compensatory, the
	  criminal justice system calls "restitution".

	o "Punitive damages" are taxable.  This includes amounts received 
	  by judgements and settlements which are not for a specific expense
	  incurred.  What the IRS calls punitive damages, the criminal justice
	  system calls "reparation".

	  Bummer.  I think that if my reparation payments can be counted as 
	  _income_, I should be able to deduct from that income other expenses 
	  that I am/have incurred as a result of the crime.  It's not like I 
	  won the lottery or something where the income is on a 1-way street, 
	  but that's how the IRS appears to see it.  

								nancy b.
  						

	.161 >  It's not like I won the lottery or something ...

	Too bad the odds for being raped aren't more like
	the odds for winning the lottery.

	And, too bad the odds for winning the lottery aren't
	like the odds for being raped -- 1 out of every 4
	women would be rich!  
						nancy b.

    Talk to  a  tax  accountant  (I've recommended one who I find very
    sharp  elsewhere).  You  may be able to argue that even though the
    courts  awarded  money  as  reparations,  you  can use it to cover
    expenses from the crime, in which case it would be compensatory. I
    don't know if this is true, but call a sharp accountant who may be
    able to find some similar trick.

--David

This is a request from a member of the community who wishes to remain anonymous
at this time.
	Mez

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

	subj> : Request for counselor/therapist recommendations

	Does anyone know of a good therapist who deals with rape 
	survivors in the greater Boston/S. New Hampshire area?

	Should a rape thaerapist be a woman?       Thanks.

          re: .163 (David Wittenberg)

          >    You  may be able to argue that even though the courts
          >    awarded  money  as  reparations,  you  can use it to cover
          >    expenses from the crime, in which case it would be
          >    compensatory.

          Thanks, David, I'm planning on doing just that.

          Showing that the reparations could be used to cover expenses from
          the crime will not be difficult for 1989, since the related
          expenses last year were relatively high and because the payments
          only started in December.

          For this year, I can't imagine it will be nearly as easy (to show
          reparations cover expenses).

          [set sarcasm/on]

          So I s'pose I should wait till filing next year's return for
          claiming 6 dependents... Since the Supreme Court believes that
          life begins at conception, it is conceivable (pun intended) that
          I could have had 6 pregnancies in 1 year; all prematurely
          terminated because they were "blighted ovums".  Darn it, I
          already had the letter started!

          "Dear IRS: ...
                                                       nancy b.

    re .164 counseling
    
    i would call the cambridge rape crisis center for referrals.  most
    areas in new england have something.
    
    and yes, i would recommend a woman, preferably one who's been through
    it.

	The following usenet posting was forwarded to me from a 
	member of the community.  

	The author is responding to an argument about women "asking
	for it" that sounds a lot like a debate that occurred waaay
	back around the beginning of this topic.  I phoned the author
	to request permission to repost to =wn= what she wrote.  It
	was kinda strange/shocking to talk with someone who shared 
	so many of the same views and experiences as I.  

							nancy b.


Article         9053
From: [email protected] (Carole Ashmore)
Subject: Re: Asking for it
Summary: Too bloody damn many naive postings on this subject.
Keywords: Why ask for trouble?
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (mark l dyson) writes:
> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (--SeebS--) writes:
> 
> >As we are so fond of saying: She may be asking for trouble. But does this
> >excuse someone giving it to her?
> 
> Absolutely not.  But then, we are all 'decent, law-abiding' folks who wouldn't
> force sex on an unwilling woman even if she strolled down every dark alley in
> town stark naked!  Unfortunately, not all people share our self-restraint and
> regard for the rights of others.  The major point is this:  'Asking for it' in
> no wise excuses the animal behavior of an assailant.  But 'asking for it' is a
> very, very stupid thing to do, and makes it very difficult to add sympathy for
> someone so idiotic to our normal repugnance for the animal who 'gave it.'
> Please, PLEASE be aware of the shits in the world, and be careful.  Don't get
> into situations you can't handle--there's no excuse for that, either!
 
Mark,
 
I'm not picking on you any more than on all the other naive men and
boys who have posted on this subject; it's just that I finally reached
my saturation point with your well meant reply and decided to do some
educating.
 
First let me tell you a story.  Up till the age of 29 I lived the sort
of life where your advice made some sense.  I had gotten an
undergraduate degree while living in my parents house and commuting to
a local university.  I had married and lived with my husband in
suburbia and worked at a well paying job.  I took the reasonable
precautions of never going out alone after dark (in any neighborhood)
except in a car with the doors locked --and if my destination meant
parking as much as a block away and walking after dark I took my
husband with me or got some man to walk me to the car, etc.  I didn't
face the dangers of a woman living alone; I slept in the same bed as
my husband.  I didn't go out on dates, period; so I wasn't vulnerable
to date rape by misjudging a man I agreed to be alone with.  These
precautions were slightly restrictive; there were things my husband or
other men could do that I couldn't.  But they weren't too imposibly
restrictive.  They did not interfere with my making a living or
getting an education, or being able to afford housing or getting
enough to eat.  The degree of restriction was unpleasant, but seemed
justified given the degree of safety it purchased.
 
At age 29 I got divorced and decided to go back to school and work on
a graduate degree.  As with most students, funds were very tight.  I
sold my car and moved to cheap housing within walking distance of the
university.  I got a half time student job that, along with my savings
and my more frugal lifestyle, would enable me to get that degree.  The
job was a very good one for a student, paying top student wages, and
it was in the University computer center, enabling me to learn some of
the practical aspects of the field I was seeking the degree in.  One
little problem.  The guy who scheduled student help at the computer
center would work around your class schedule and nothing else.  On the
average of twice a week I found myself needing to walk home after
dark.  I didn't think it would be much of a problem; the University
area certainly didn't look like what I thought of as a 'high crime'
area.  Wrongo.  Two months after I started the job I was attacked on
the street, on my way home, by a would-be rapist with a knife.  Got
out of that one with the help of loud screams and a couple of gutsy
passers-by.  Two months after that another would-be rapist (with
another knife) pulled out the screen of the second story window of my
room at the rooming house, held the knife to my throat in the dark,
and said "Don't move and don't scream and I won't hurt you."  Luck was
really running with me that time.  In the dark he hadn't noticed that
my current lover had happened to spend the night and was sleeping on
the far side of the bed.  Said lover sat up and groggily said,
"Carole, what the hell's going on?" and the would-be rapist made a
fast exit through the window.
 
About this point in time it occurred to me that I was living in a much
more dangerous environment than before and that it would be totally
unreasonable to depend on the sort of luck that had saved me twice.
I had gone to the police both times, and their advice had been (in the
first instance) "Don't go out after dark, ever; if you do it's your
own fault you get raped."  Only one little problem with that.  In
Minnesota, in the winter, there are approximately 8.5 hours of
daylight.  Even if I quit my good student job and took one that was
strictly days, there was no way I could work 20 hours a week, attend
school half time, and buy groceries without going outside after dark.
No way.  In the second instance their advice was "Don't live in a
cheap rooming house around the University where lots of women live
alone and rapists are attracted; live in a high security apartment
building in the suburbs and commute by car, not bus."  Only one little
problem with that.  There was no way I could afford it except on a
full time job, in which case I couldn't go to school.  
 
In summary, I had put myself in a situation where getting the degree I
wanted was a reasonable option for any man but not a safe option for
any woman.  The restrictions needed for safety would destroy something
really important in my life.  I asked the police for a permit to carry
a gun.  "You're kidding," they said.  "The only people who get permits
to carry are people who have to carry large amounts of money."  Shows
you what this society values and how important they think protection
for women is.  I looked into my state laws and discovered that the
penalty for 'carrying' was a $1,000 fine with a year in jail at the
option of the judge.  I bought the gun and carried it, figuring that
the chances of getting caught and actually having to go to jail were
minimal and that risk was worth taking for the sake of my education,
whereas the risk of being defenseless against knife wielding rapists
was not.  However, I am one of the rare women in this culture who was
raised around guns, taught how to handle them in youth, and shown that
they could be used responsibly by good citizens (Thank you Dad.  Thank
you NRA.)  Very few women feel they have this as a safe option.  And
most of those who do are put off by the fact that it has been made
illegal for women to defend themselves.
 
Can you understand that the simple precautions you tell me I would
have been a fool not to take would have precluded my getting that
degree?  Can you look at the real situation of women in this country
who are not upper middle class, who don't have husbands, who may be
single parents, and realize that they may *have* to work the night
shift and take the bus home to a bad neighborhood because that is the
only gooddam way they can feed their children?  Can you understand how
ridiculous saying "If you don't take these simple precautions, you are
a fool." to them really is?
 
THINK, you turkeys, before opening your mouths.  Women don't live in
the same world men do.  Poor people don't live in the same world
well-to-do ones do.  Some of you are so FUCKING naive.  Instead of
telling women they are fools to take chances they may HAVE to take,
get out there and campaign for allowing women to legally defend
themselves.  Get out there and campaign for life sentences for
convicted rapists-with-weapons.  Do something bloody useful for a
change!
 
 
 
 
					Carole Ashmore

 A very interesting piece. 

 I would like to make one comment, though. There are some activities which
are just normal activities which happen to be more dangerous for women to do.
When someone says "Don't engage in risky behavior," they don't mean "Stop
living as a human being because you are female." They mean "It may not be 
foolproof, but take _some_ precautions."

 The fact that the victim engages in risky behavior does not mitigate the guilt
of the perpetrator one iota. It does increase the chances of meeting up with
a perpetrator. And that is what is being addressed.

 The Doctah

    I worry about us ---and I'm not the only one, this has been expressed
    many times already here--- when we focus on what *women* should do to
    avoid attack.  Parallels have been drawn to other tactics such as "not
    leaving keys in the ignition" to create the impression that defensive
    behavior by potential victims is nothing more than reasonable and
    prudent, but the parallels fail because they're not something that only
    *women* should do.
    
    Mark, I would argue that no normal activity "happens" to be more
    dangerous for women to do:  they're *made* more dangerous for women to
    do.  It doesn't seem to me that it's a healthy idea to minimise the
    intentional, directed nature of these crimes or to characterise them as
    things that just "happen" mostly or exclusively to women.
    
    						=maggie

    Many years ago I was in NYC and happened to be having a few drinks in a
    bar with a steward for BOAC (shows you how many years ago?).  He told
    me that when they landed anywhere before releasing the crew they were
    reminded not to be on the streets after dark without an escort in
    Hong Kong, Singapore, a few other cities, and the United States of
    America.
    
    ed

>    Mark, I would argue that no normal activity "happens" to be more
>    dangerous for women to do:  they're *made* more dangerous for women to
>    do. 

 Is that not a semantic distinction, in the pragmatic sense?

>It doesn't seem to me that it's a healthy idea to minimise the
>    intentional, directed nature of these crimes or to characterise them as
>    things that just "happen" mostly or exclusively to women.

 That's not my aim at all. I'm failing to communicate.

 What I mean to say is certain activities performed in certain manners at
certain times in certain places substantially increase the probability that
any particular individual will be victimized. When these activities can be
curtailed without adversely affecting the freedoms of the individuals in 
question, it seems to be common sense to do so. Even so, it still isn't a
guarantee against victimization. And it also fails to address situations
which cannot be altered, such as having to walk home in the dark because you
cannot afford alternative transporation.

 I was thinking on a much larger plane than rape when I wrote the previous 
entry. Evidently, what I was thinking didn't quite make it to the screen.

 And to repeat, whether or not someone engages in risky behavior or not has
no relevance whatsoever to the guilt associated with the perpetrator of the 
crime. If I whip out a wad of $100 bills in central park at night, the gang of
white trash that relieves me of them are no less guilty than if they accosted
me on a "safe" street in an upper middle class neighborhood. However, I could
have reduced my chances of losing my cash had I kept it in my pocket.

 Is this any clearer, or is my point still lost?

 The Doctah

    re .171, Mark-
    
    >  Is that not a semantic distinction, in the pragmatic sense?
    
    Hmmmm.  Yes and no.  
    
    The important distinction here is that the words we use to describe our
    reality have an effect upon our perceptions.  Words are not neutral,
    they carry nuance and value-loading.  You yourself have been making the
    distinction that a perpetrator bears full responsibility.  But claiming
    that the distinction between "activity that happens to be more
    dangerous" and "activitiy that is *made* dangerous" is only semantic,
    biases the listener towards blaming the victim.
    
    Sensitivity towards the words we use is exactly the point that Peggy
    was making, especially in her postscript.
    
    DougO

    ('sokay, Doug, both Peggy & I are Margarets on our birth certs. so
    the confusion is understandable.  'Sides, we look so much alike ;')
    
    
    Mark, I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head...it is
    indeed a "semantic" distinction:  it concerns the *meaning* of what
    is said.  (Yes I know that by "semantic" you mean "trivial" or
    "surface" but that's another problem:  it *doesn't*.  People
    trivialise the effect of word-choice too much.  Whorf has probably
    been doing a steady 2500 rpm since the day he was planted!)
    
    When we talk about some act as though it were the product of natural
    law instead of an intentional choice on the part of the actor, we
    minimise the responsibility for the act:  if something "just
    happens" or happens because of something the victim did or didn't
    do, then clearly there is less blame attached to the
    perpetrator...even when we also verbally genuflect to the notion of
    that individual's personal responsibility.
    
    						=maggie

>if something "just
>    happens" or happens because of something the victim did or didn't
>    do,

 I tried to separate the "happens" from anything the victim did or didn't do.
I also specifically stated that the culpability of the perpetrator was not
in any way affected by anything the victim did or didn't do.

 I think you picked on a semantic problem and zeroed in on it, despite the fact
that I came out and stated that (the implications of my word usage) were
contrary to my intended meaning.

 Hey- I tried.

 The Doctah

    Mark, regardless of how it might look :-) I'm really not beating on
    you personally...you simply provided a fine example of a wretched
    tendency:  to talk about the bad things that are done, particularly
    to women and members of minority groups, as though intentional
    causality were minimal or absent.
    
    						=maggie
    
    (And I'm not immune, btw:  my original sentence was "...bad things
    that happen,....".   
    
    The problem is a *very* hard, pervasive, and subtle one.  I think it
    merits considerable attention.)

It seems like there are two incontrovertible facts about rape:

	1.  It is a horrible crime; it is a monstrous injustice that women
	    have to worry about it at all; there can be no justification
	    it.

	2.  There are things that women can do to reduce their risk of
	    being raped.

These are totally independent.  They are both important, but they don't
have anything to do with each other.  However, any discussion that begins
with one of them is quickly derailed by the interjection of the other.

If you tell the story of a woman who was raped (class 1), and I reply that
she might have avoided it by not walking alone at night (class 2), my comment
is a complete non sequitur -- and a rather insensitive one at that.

If you observe that women need to acquire the means to defend themselves
(guns, self defense training, or whatever) (class 2), and I reply that 
women ought not to have to have to defend themselves (class 1), then once
again I am guilty of a non sequitur.

The result is discussions where both parties can go "Yes, but..." forever.

	-Neil

    Neil, it's not clear to me that the two things are independent:  I
    would argue that if rape did not exist, it would neither be horrible
    nor would there be any risk to reduce.  Am I seeing a dependency
    that isn't there, do you think?
    
    						=maggie

> The fact that the victim engages in risky behavior does not mitigate the guilt
> of the perpetrator one iota. It does increase the chances of meeting up with
> a perpetrator. And that is what is being addressed.
 

    No, the question is not entirely one of who is guilty and who is innocent.
    The question is also one of who is the victim.  Because of the ethos
    that states "take precautions, and it won't happen", _all_ women become
    victims.

    Carol is 100% right.  What she is saying is that women cannot lead
    a life free from fear, and that that is deeply unfair.  

    You don't have to be attacked to realize that your life is being run
    by fear of crazies in the streets and the knowledge that society is
    not going to support _your side_ if anything happens, even though you 
    are doing nothing that would be considered dangerous if a _man_ did it.

    To give you an example, a few years back I was working at another job
    in a dangerous section of a major U.S. city.  That day, I knew I'd 
    have to be at work late, and a [male] friend said he'd give me a ride 
    home.  We had an argument, and he decided to renege at the last minute
    out of vengeance.  There was no way I could get another ride home at
    that point, and he knew it.  He suggested I take the train, "like _I_
    would".  This would have meant I'd have to walk several blocks through 
    a poorly lighted region known for violent attacks on women at night, 
    and wait in two fairly dangerous subway stations for trains (for a total 
    of about 40 minutes of waiting.)  I was wearing a skirt, so there was
    little chance of my being taken for male.

    Needless to say, I was livid, and said many of the same things to him
    that Carol wrote.  And, much as I pride myself on being independent, at
    that moment I felt like a victim.

    If "chances of meeting up with a perpetrator" are all that's being
    addressed, you're missing what I consider to be the key point.

	Sharon

    I did some head-nodding at .176 by Neil (?).  
    
    Point 1 (rape is horrible and injust) is a different angle completely
    from point 2 (women can reduce their risk of rape).  Both spring from
    the same source (rape exists), but go in different directions.  One
    focuses on the root horror of it all, one focuses on dealing with the
    practical consequences.  (Of course, the practical consequences are
    part of the horror, so...)   The danger of concentrating solely on the
    first point is that one can become angry at the thought of having to
    take unfair precautions; the danger of concentrating solely on the
    second point is that one can come closer to blaming the victim.  And
    people who concentrate on opposite points sometimes misunderstand each
    other.
    
    I think disentangling the lines of argument could help us communicate
    better.  
    
    Pam

    re .173, Maggie!  hmph.
    
    I knew I'd just read something of Peggy's that was relevant, and
    dern my luck, it was in another string entirely.  Here 'tis-
    
    930.91>
    >		(-)
    >		 |
    >			I have said that it is what one does
    >			that is telling, in some instances this
    >			does include how one uses words/ideas. 
    
    We are beholden to make careful choices, in the words we use.
    Our choices not only reveal us...they can trigger reactions in
    our readers.  To enhance communications, we can judiciously pick
    words that will not alienate or pre-bias our audience.  
    
    "Semantics"?  Yes.  "Just semantics"?  No.
    
    DougO

>Because of the ethos
>    that states "take precautions, and it won't happen",

 I have never heard anyone make this claim. Risk reduction, yes. Prevention, no.
If you pack a gun, it still isn't prevention like an immunization. It's just
stcking the deck more in your favor (read: less in the perp's favor.)

>What she is saying is that women cannot lead
>    a life free from fear, and that that is deeply unfair.  

 Neither can men.

>    If "chances of meeting up with a perpetrator" are all that's being
>    addressed, you're missing what I consider to be the key point.

 That's all that is being addressed by a single argument, not the entire rape
discussion.

 Boy, I really managed to scramble transmissions yesterday. :-)

 The Doctah

    re .181 -
    
    "Neither can men" -
    
    You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?

Dorian in .182 takes a comment from Mark's .181 out of context, and so gives
the impression that he was saying something quite other than what he really
was saying.

.182:

>    "Neither can men" -
>    
>    You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?

but the context in .181 is:

> >What she is saying is that women cannot lead
> >    a life free from fear, and that that is deeply unfair.  
>
>  Neither can men.

This may be irrelevant to the discussion, but it neither says that men
are affected by fear *as much* as women are, nor that the fear that men
have that concerns men is rape.  It simply points out that men, too, have
to be afraid, have to be cautious, perhaps not do things they would like
to do, because of fear of what might happen to them.

I say "irrelevant" because

    -	The magnitude of the appropriate fear, and its impact on one's life,
	is totally out of proportion for men and for women; and

    -	*this* discussion is about women's fear.

Neil

re: Mike

 I don't believe that the fear of being unfairly charged with rape is on the
same level as the fear of being raped. Was that your assertion?

re: .182

>    You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?

 Nope. But the fear of assault does.

 The Doctah

    I strongly urge anyone who wants to consider relative degrees of 'fear'
    to reference this topic in the previous version of the file, before
    asking leading questions or making pointed answers to those questions.
    
    mosaic::womannotes-v1, topic 214, "Fear".
    
    DougO

re .184 -

>>.182>    You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?

>	Nope.  But fear of being unfairly charged with it does.


Really. Is it anything like this?



"Fear of rape is a cold wind blowing
all of the time on a woman's hunched back.
Never to stroll alone on a sand road through pinewoods
never to climb a trail across a bald mountain
without that aluminum in the mouth
when I see a man climbing toward me.

"Never to open the door to a knock
without that razor just grazing the throat.
The fear of the dark side of hedges,
the back seat of the car, the empty house
rattling keys like a snake's warning.
The fear of the smiling man
in whose pocket is a knife.
The fear of the serious man
in whose fist is locked hatred...."

   from a poem by Marge Piercy.

    
    re:.184
    you're kidding, right?
    

    RE; last couple
    
    Wow. 
    
    I really don't think men understand the kind of unlying constant
    fear that women in this society feel. Waiting in your car in the
    parking lot in broad daylight so the guy who pulled in the same time
    you did gets out of his car and gets a long way away before you
    leave yours. Going through an entire flow-chart of which street to
    take, shortcut/no shortcut/ where are the streetlights?, watch
    the doorways, and on and on, just to get to your destination.
    
    (Oh yeah....that's "not *all* men")
    
    RE: Fear of being accused of rape
    
    Too bad that fear hasn't infected the 12 men per minute who are still
    raping.
    
    --DE
    

	You want to know fear.

	Someone tried to break into the home last night - into the
	room where my daughter was sleeping.

	Was it a know person or a stranger - I don't know.

	Was it a man or a woman - if it was a woman she had mighty
		big feet.

	Were they going to steal something or rape my daughter - I
		don't know.

	Am I scared to live alone? You bet I am.  Will I continue
	to live alone after my kids leave this month.  You bet I will.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			Fear is part of everywoman survival kit.

    
    Fear of being raped?  Yup.
    
    I'm going to be moving much farther from Boston when I eventually
    get my own apartment.  Not because the rent's much cheaper (it's really
    not), but because the suburbs are safer.
    
    I'm going to be buying a new car.  I'd like to be able to park it 
    away from other cars in a parking lot, but if I'm alone I can't
    because I'd have to walk to an empty part of the lot and I could
    be attacked.  
    
    I like to go see bands perform live in a club, but I don't go
    alone anymore because I'm too scared these days.  I mean I would
    probably meet lots of people I knew at the show, but I'd have to
    walk from my car to the club alone.
    
    The winter is the worst time because it gets dark so quickly. And if
    you're a woman out alone after dark, of course you're asking to get
    raped.
    
    Little things, but it definitely changes the way I live.
    
    And I don't think a lot of men really understand the fear a woman
    has of being raped.  Besides being beaten, you're violated.  
    Just imagine after being smacked over the head and having your money
    taken, then having something shoved into you where it doesn't belong.
    And being told you deserve it.
    
    Lisa
    
    

	re: .168,.181 (the Doctah)

	.168 >  I would like to make one comment, though. [...]

	Mark, I got a chuckle to see that you were the first to respond to
	.167 as you did.  As a matter of fact, when I first read Carole
	Ashmore's .167 and saw how she addressed a guy named "Mark", I found
	it amusing since I seemed to remember *you* making a similar 
	argument waaay early in this topic.   I hate to say, "I knew you'd 
	respond like that", but...  [hey, you've done it to me once before
	re: Dead Ringers in this conference too, so there :-P!]


	.181>> Because of the ethos that states "take precautions, 
	.181>> and it won't happen",	

	.181> I have never heard anyone make this claim. 

	Too bad you weren't there in the police station when the police 
	officer said basically the above >> in explaining why I did not need 
	a gun permit.

							nancy b.

    	re: =maggie

.169    [...] no normal activity "happens" to be more
        dangerous for women to do:  they're *made* more dangerous for women to
        do.  It doesn't seem to me that it's a healthy idea to minimise the
        intentional, directed nature of these crimes or to characterise them as
        things that just "happen" mostly or exclusively to women.
 
.173    When we talk about some act as though it were the product of natural
        law instead of an intentional choice on the part of the actor, we
        minimise the responsibility for the act:  

.175    ...you simply provided a fine example of a wretched tendency:  to talk 
        about the bad things that are done, particularly to women and members 
	of minority groups, as though intentional causality were minimal or 
	absent.

        re: DougO

.172    Words are not neutral, they carry nuance and value-loading.

        ...claiming that the distinction between "activity that happens to 
	be more dangerous" and "activitiy that is *made* dangerous" is only 
	semantic, biases the listener towards blaming the victim.

>	.181> I have never heard anyone make this claim. 
>
>	Too bad you weren't there in the police station when the police 
>	officer said basically the above >> in explaining why I did not need 
>	a gun permit.

 In this conference, I mean. C'mon, Nancy, can't you see the cheif's point
of view? We can't have women out there shooting every guy that makes a pass at 
them, now can we? Besides, women don't know how to use guns anyway. Why can't
they just find a man to protect them? Besides, if they weren't where they
weren't supposed to be, they wouldn't have to worry about this in the first 
place.

 I hate authority figures that are less intelligent than you but think they
know better. Arrgh. Here you are, an intelligent person speaking to this
dopey good 'ole boy who by the power granted him by the legislature, holds
the key in determining whether you can legally defend yourself in the manner
you choose. Isn't that special?  "C'mon missy, the worst that'll happen is 
you'll get raped, and as long as you lay quietly and accept it, you won't
get that hurt. Besides, we all secretly know that you enjoy it." I could
just about puke when I hear words that essentially say the same thing, albeit
indirectly, from the mouths of those in charge of maintaining order.

> I hate to say,...

 Baloney. You like to say it. Admit it. Hope you enjoyed it. :-)

 The Doctah

	re: .178 (Sharon Walker)

	>  We had an argument, and he decided to renege at the last 
	>  minute out of vengeance. 

	Sharon, I would have been totally pissed off at him for doing 
	that too.  

	re: .192 (Peggy Leedberg)

	Peggy, I'm sorry that happened.  

	At least your locks or whatever were strong enough to stop the person.  

	(and I don't want to give unsolicited advice, though you probably
 	know what I feel like strongly urging you to consider doing...)

							nancy b.

	re: .176 (Neil Faiman)  -< Two separate lines of discussion confused >-

	Neil, I was immediately puzzled by what you said in .176 about the
	2 things concerning rape ( 1-rape is a horrible crime,
	and 2-there are things women can do to reduce their risk of being 
	raped) as being "totally independant".

	Not confused about *what* you said, but puzzled as to how you 
	reconcile the above with what you told Kath in 525.140, where you
	spoke about the interdependence of 1-rape and 2-how the supposed 
	benefit to women of increased awareness/caution, etc., that rape 
	and the threat of rape "provides" (gag) us, is not a true "benefit" 
	at all.

							nancy b.

    
    re: .192, Peggy -- I'm so sorry you had to go through that.  I cringed 
    reading your note.

    ----------
    
    I've been thinking about feelings recently.  About a month ago I 
    started thinking about experiences I've had.  For each experience 
    that came to mind, I recalled accompanying feelings and put names to
    them.  After I'd gotten together quite a good list I saw (it was 
    there in black and white) that the feeling I'd experienced most 
    often (or most memorably) was fear or some variation on it -- I've 
    been scared, afraid, terrified, apprehensive, as well as fearful. 
    My most terrifying moments have been either in places where I 
    thought I was safe (at home) or with people I thought I could be 
    safe with (family members, lovers).

    I live a regular life.  I come and go here and there, at night or 
    during the day, very often alone.  I don't have bars on my windows,
    nor is my house alarmed.  I don't even have a dog to bark at strange
    noises in the night (though I wish I did have a dog for that and 
    other reasons).  But, I am, very often, afraid.  A by-product of 
    living with this is, I think, what I now call my "impending doom" 
    flashes.  I can be doing anything ordinary and suddenly, for only as
    long as it takes to become aware of it, my mind will conjure up 
    something bad happening -- a common and not particularly unnerving 
    one is getting crunched beneath the wheels of a big truck when I'm 
    driving (or riding with someone else) on the highway, and approach 
    or begin to pass one.  I pass trucks frequently.  I drive a lot and 
    even enjoy it.  But, every once in awhile I get a flash of a 
    catastrophic and unavoidable collision.  

    A more personal "flash", and the one that made me think about the 
    fact that I had them ('Am I crazy?' I wondered...)  happened a 
    couple of summers ago, when I was home alone at night.  It was 
    summer and my housemate was working late.  It was about 11:00 and I 
    was logged in (probably reading notes).  The window was open and I 
    was aware of voices coming from the street and realised they 
    belonged to a couple of kids (teenagers?  early 20's?) from across 
    the street -- they were sitting on the edge of their lawn, near the 
    street, joking and goofing around.  No doubt they could see me 
    sitting at the desk, in front of the window.  I'd turned the 
    sprinkler on when I got home and every hour or so I'd gone out to 
    move it to another part of the lawn.  It was about time to do that 
    again, but I couldn't.  I suddenly was afraid that the boys (young 
    men?) across the street would overpower me and (what?) rape me, or 
    hurt me in someway, if I went outside.  I imagined they were 
    plotting something as they drank their beer, watching me, lit up in 
    my window and I was afraid that they might sneak around to the back 
    door, up the stairs, and inside.  It was a very pleasant night; I 
    didn't want to close and lock the door or the windows off the deck.
    I remembered all the times I'd not bothered to cover up or close the
    shades when going from one room to another and wondered if they'd 
    seen me in various stages of undress (and would I now be "punished" 
    for that?).  I felt like I'd been a "bad girl."

    That's a part of what "being a woman" is like for me.

    CQ

RE:  .193

I'm sure that men have a hard time understand the constant threat/fear
of rape.  I know I do.

A couple of times I thought I was in danger of getting sexually
assaulted. Once, I accepted a ride on a motorcycle from a guy and he
started getting abusive and grabbing my private parts.  I jumped off
the bike as soon as I could.  Another time, I was out running at about
5:30 in the morning at a ski resort and no one else was up.  I saw a
car following me a short distance behind.  The man started making
sexually harassing comments.  He followed me for quite a while. I ran
towards the main street as fast as I could. I remember being shaken up
for quite some time.

I don't think about these two incidents much and I don't live in fear
of being raped (altough in certain situations, I will remember these
incidents and be afraid)...

john

    I don't think about rape, not really.  Of course, every now and
    then, I think "Gee, it *could* happen to me", but then again, every
    now and then I also think I could get in a car accident, or smushed
    by a falling overpass.  (dryly humorous side note:  Coming from
    the San Francisco Bay Area, I tend to think about the latter most
    of all while driving under a small maze of overpasses where I reside).
    
    I also don't get scared often, unless I psyche myself out.  I go
    and come as I please, outside or inside, night or day.  Certainly
    I do not go out of my way to make myself a target, like hang out
    in super seedy sides of town, or lurk in dark areas or hang out
    on street corners, but if it is 1am and I wanna go walk down the
    street to get my car, and go someplace, I do.  Hell, if I liked
    to jog, I'd run whenever I wanted to, I suppose, altho why I'd go
    out in the early a.m. is beyond me (I can't even get up at 7am like
    I am supposed to).  I never have put bars on my windows, or jumped
    every time I heard voices out on the street, or saw people hanging
    around (even men) outside my yard.  Sure, I try and pull the blinds
    whenever I am getting dressed if there's a chance someone might
    see in from outside, but that's from a sense of modesty, not really,
    "Someone might think it's an invitation" (not that the thought-flash
    hasn't ever crossed my mind, but again, I thought-flash that the
    elevator I'm in will fall down the shaft).
    
    Does that make me any more risky or "asking for trouble" or less
    careful than I should be?  I don't think so.  I'm not looking for
    anything.  Certainly, I do not wish to be raped.  I don't wish to
    be mugged.  I don't even wish for someone to shove me in passing.
    I also don't wish for me to get in a car accident, or slide off
    the road, or whatever, and I do the best I can to make sure my car
    doesn't hit anyone else's, but I still drive.  Even in dangerous
    road conditions.  I take ordinary precautions.  And I take ordinary
    precautions with my daily life, too.  I *could* get raped.  I *could*
    get beat up.  I *could* get murdered.  But I still go out.
    
    I will be moving in with my boyfriend next month.  I honestly don't
    think I will be any safer living with him, than living without him,
    since my daily in-and-out life are going to be the same.  I suppose,
    statisically, I am less likely to be the target of a roving
    burgular-rapist who is looking for women who live alone, but what
    about the burgular-whatever who doesn't care who lives in the house,
    or simply didn't case it first hand, or *thinks* I live alone? 
    What about the loonies I might bump into in the supermarket, or
    at the mall, and who might follow me home?  Or try and peg me in
    the parking lot?  I dunno.  I can't worry about them.  Otherwise
    I'd live in fear, in a box.  Life is hard enough to enjoy by
    itself--getting trapped by the fear of society's misfits makes it
    that much harder.  I expect society as a whole to behave itself
    and leave me alone--acknowledging that, yes, people CAN get hurt--but
    not fretting about it.  I don't think I am that much more vulnerable
    to assault than if I were a man--maybe if I were a guy, I'd get
    killed, or beat up, or whatever (or even raped!) by someone who
    wanted to prove how tough he was (or she was?).  
    
    Maybe I'm more blase about things than I should be, or just determined
    not to let misfits run MY life, but I feel that woman or not, you
    really can't let fear be your captor.  I know that if I get raped,
    or assaulted or robbed or killed, it wasn't MY fault.  It isn't
    a contest that whoever lets their guard down first deserves to get
    whomped.  I'm minding the rules, and I can do a little to watch
    out for those that don't mind the rules, but I can't stop them from
    breaking the rules, and I can't stop the fact that I might run into
    a rulebreaker sometime in my life.  As they say, sometimes sh*t
    happens.  I can watch out for it, but some of it might hit me anyway.
    
    ---kim

    I'm vaguely surprised that no one has mentioned the results of a
    survey done on fear.  It was mentioned in Time (I think) just a
    few weeks ago.
    
    The most fearful category of men (old men) is still less fearful
    than the least fearful category of women (young women).
    
    So, could we at least not have any claims about how men are just
    as fearful as women about "things"?  Thank you.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  No, I don't know how the survey was done.

    I can certainly imagine people - perhaps especially single women -
    feeling especially isolated and exposed in "the suburbs" (an overly
    vague term). But I believe the facts don't bear this out. Boston proper
    has a small fraction of the population of the "greater Boston area,"
    yet surely it has most of the crime - violent and otherwise. Nor do I
    think suburbs have "all the kinkos," long mouldring unfound bodies, or
    new waves of criminals. It is true that rapes and murders in "quiet,
    prosperous" suburbs get a ton of publicity, but that's because they are
    rare, not common. City crime is usually too boring to report, except,
    of course, when it has middle class suburban victims. And suburban
    violence is even more likely than city crime to be "all in the family."
    Those who are single and friendless way have little to worry about.
    
    Of course, just because you're paranoid, you may not be _safe_. Do
    think about when to lock doors, etc., wherever you are.
    
    Finally, (warning, R rated material ahead)
    
    I think what you say about mutilation fears may apply equally
    to men (for whom it is not _only_ a fear of castration). Certainly the
    secret police of various Latin American regimes seem to have found
    genital threats and pain a method of choice, regardless of the victim's
    sex (if one can believe what one has read). But I'm going to speculate
    that for men, fantasies of sexual violation/mutilation don't often get
    mentally connected to perceptions of actual danger, as they do for
    women, since one hears so much less about sexual violence of any kind
    against men. Origin of this thought. When I started college, I
    attracted a lot of unwelcome attention from a large, strong,
    body-building, male classmate (I was quite cute!). Sometimes his
    harrasment got quite physical, and I was rescued from I-don't-know-what
    only by the intervention of other students. I was afraid, but only as
    of being hurt in a fight; I never got worried about specifically sexual
    acts, though perhaps I should have. This was long before the current
    concept of sexual harrasment had evolved for either sex, so it never
    occured to me to lodge complaints with any authorities; just to avoid
    unpeopled areas where I might meet him. Yet this essentially seemed an
    isolated and anomolous experience for me; and even after there were 
    echos of it later in college life, I never came to feel I had to shape
    my life around such threats. 
    
    					- Bruce

Date rape is a very real and very frequent occurrence in this country.
No woman is safe just just because she lives in the suburbs and not a 
big city.  Rape does not just occur by strangers.

If anyone has any figures on date rape, I'd be curious to see them.

Carla

    I don't know that the figures can be compiled. By its very definition,
    date rape is very ambiguous in terms of 'labels' due, in part to the
    attitudes in our society. Attitudes like, 'you want it as much as me',
    or any other manipulative manner that results in date rape goes
    unreported, by-in-large for some very obvious reasons. If we can get
    the courts to protect women from the violent rapes without subjecting
    them to 'you must have been looking for it' or using past sexual
    activity as justification for rape we might stand a chance to address
    this socially tolerated form of rape.
    
    rick
    	

    I've been bothered by the "there are things that you (women) can do to
    reduce your risk of rape" comment. If a women doesn't do anything to
    reduce her chances of being raped, even if she engages in what might
    be considered "risky" behavior, and she is raped IT IS NOT HER FAULT.
    Not even a little bit. As long as we agree on that, I will agree with
    the premise, but if there is even the tiniest implication that anyone
    who hasn't done those things desrves to be raped... I disagree.
    Vehemently. The "problem" is the rapists. Entirely.
    
    	-- Charles

    re .207 >The "problem" is the rapists. Entirely.
    
    Granted. We are looking for solutions, both short- and long
    term. In the long term, education and change in attitudes,
    on a social level, is desirable. In the short term, you have
    to survive long enough to help effect the long term solutions.
    
    I'd prefer the statement "there are things that we each can
    do to reduce our risk of being assaulted." I won't pretend
    that a man being mugged and a woman being raped are similar.
    Those are different in kind, not just degree. However, the
    same precautions can reduce the risk of both. (Personally,
    there are neighborhoods *I* won't go after dark, with or
    without a gun. Is this OK? No. If I go there, am I looking
    for trouble ?  No. Solutions ? Long-term: reduce crime. 
    Short-term: seek amusement elsewhere.)
    
    Dana
    

    Although it has been many years since I was dating the subject of
    date rape is still one that deeply troubles me. Men who force or
    coerce a date into having sex for what ever reason are a type
    of person I do not understand.
    
    Bonnie

    One bad side affect from date rape is our (social) assertion that it is OK,
    sometimes, to force yourself on a woman. I am deeply offended that this
    country still tolerates such behavior. Need we wonder why women are
    stuggling to deal with the terrible rapes that occur. There should
    never be a question of weather or not she deserved it ...noone does.
    I would say that even a prostitute who sells sex should not be
    subjected to rape...somehow, if her morals are less than ours, we
    sanction the rape. SAD
    
    bob
    

And putting together date rape and the "would you tell" topic, what if you know
for sure that someone date raped? What if you heard it nth hand? Rumor are so
tenuous, but I feel a great deal of instincts kick in on defending women on
this one.
	Mez

>    I've been bothered by the "there are things that you (women) can do to
>    reduce your risk of rape" comment. If a women doesn't do anything to
>    reduce her chances of being raped, even if she engages in what might
>    be considered "risky" behavior, and she is raped IT IS NOT HER FAULT.

 Thank you Charles for saying it for the nth time. I have yet to see anyone 
disagree with that.

 The Doctah

    This goes back a long way, I was in college 25 years ago.
    
    One thing that was quite common was young men who felt it was
    okay to use almost any kind of pressure, largely psychological
    (if you loved me you'd..) in the form of lines, but also just
    wearing away at someone, or continuing to 'make out' past
    the young woman's comfort point, to achieve intercourse. It was
    like the woman didn't matter, 'scoring' did.
    
    Very often the young woman found her self dropped cold and treated
    as lower than pond scum the next day.
    
    I don't know if this sort of behavior is still common, perhaps with
    teenagers it is, but I know a lot of my friends had their hearts
    broken by it in those days.
    
    Bonnie

    What is the saying - if you are part of the problem, you are part of
    the solution.
    
    Has the question been asked - What can men do to reduce the incidence
    of men raping women?

(Donning my asbestos suit...)
    
>    One thing that was quite common was young men who felt it was
>    okay to use almost any kind of pressure, largely psychological
>    (if you loved me you'd..) 

The "If you loved me you'd..." line is slimy, it's manipulative, it's unfair,
it's often tragic, but it is *not* date rape.   Psychological manipulation,
however insidious, deliberate and damaging, is not force or coercion.

The law cannot protect against a broken heart.  Nor should it.

And the "If you loved me..." manipulation technique is most certainly not
the sole property of young men.  While young women may have different goals,
they manipulate just as much.  (I've used that line myself, in my younger 
years.  I was a master at manipulation, and while I'm not proud of it,
it's true - but I will deny that that made me a rapist.)

D!

    >>What is the saying - if you are part of the problem, you are part of
    >>the solution.
    
    I think the saying goes:
    
    If you aren't a part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
    

    In re: Note 525.213 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA 

	> This country also tolerates women forcing themselves on men.

    Just what are these women doing, in "forcing themselves" on men, that
    constitutes rape, date rape or otherwise?
    
    		- Bruce

    I think it is important to point out that while a women may be able
    to lessen her chance of rape in a given situation, there is nothing
    a women can do that will assure her 100% that in her life she will
    not be raped.  It is a source of my own underlying fear.  That some 
    day it is something that I may have to recover from emotionally.  
    I used to think it would turn me into a basket case, but now I believe
    I am strong enough to get through it.  But I sure hope I never have to.
    	Linda

    I can't imagine how a man who does not want to have sex can maintain an
    erection if a woman is forcing sex on him.  If a man is not aroused, he
    does not have an erection.  A flaccid (unaroused) man cannot penetrate
    a woman.  Intercourse does not occur.  Rape cannot occur.  A woman
    cannot force sex on a flaccid (unaroused) man.
    
    Formfeed for the sexually-graphic squeamish 
    
    
    She could take some sort of sexual device, threaten him at gunpoint,
    flip him over, and penetrate him anally with the device, but I have
    NEVER heard of this happening.  EVER.
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Not entirely true Jody, as some children have had arousal responses
    during sexual abuse by adults.  There can be a disconnect between
    mind and body.  But I agree with you that for adults, the second
    scenerio you describe is a closer approximation of what rape is
    like for a woman.
    	Linda

>       <<< Note 525.223 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "second kiss had a twist" >>>

>	Those women use mental manipulation to get sex or to keep lovers.

         I'm still VERY unsure that mental manipulation is rape.  A
         person has the CHOICE not to submit to mental manipulation.
         Mental manipulation is NOT force.  Basically, a man does NOT
         have to have sex with a woman if he doesn't want to. *HE* is
         the penetrator.......*HE* is, also, quite often the stronger
         of the two.

>	Whether or not that constitutes "date rape", per se, is not
>    decided, but it is entirely analogous to those men using mental
>    manipulation on women, with the same objectives in mind.

         Quite often I've been mentally manipulated by men into sex.
         But that mental manipulation was ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS
         accompanied by physical force.  I can't even COUNT the number
         of times I was kissing a guy and he want too far and I said
         "No" and he said "Yes" and we fought and he won.  More often
         than not I have SUBMITTED to it after fighting, because I
         know that nothing I can do will get this guy off of me.  It
         is soooo easy for me to separate my mind from what is
         happening to my body....especially after it happens to you
	 numerous times.

	 Even though I submitted, it was STILL DATE RAPE because *I*
	 did not want it, and attempted to stop it.  Many times when I
	 used to drink a lot, I would be SOOO drunk, yet still
	 slightly aware of what was going on around me, and I was
	 raped.  Raped by men that felt that "well, she'll never
	 remember it".  When you get drunk like that you CAN'T make a
	 choice as to whether you want sex or not, NOR can you resist
	 much.  A man that does that does this sort of date rape is,
	 in my mind, totally despicable.

	 I can't count the number of times I have been "date raped",
	 they are just too numerous to even begin to count.  Two,
	 however, I've said before, were very violent and still effect
	 me today.
	 
>	Sexual intercouse is not necessary for rape.

	 Rape:	the crime of forcing a female to submit to sexual
	 intercourse.

         Yes, rape *is* sexual intercourse, and I don't know of any case
         where a man was convicted of rape when he did not penetrate
         (does anyone else?). It's either 'attempted rape' or 'assault
         and battery.'



	 kathy

    Re .221 and what Mike_Z was saying:
    
    I WISH to h*ll I could find the article--it was most intriguing,
    and I have no reason to believe it was made up.  The article concerned
    the rape of a man by two women.  If I can recall correctly, the
    man was in a bar approached by two women (he was somewhat inebriated,
    I believe), taken away by them, then tied down and made (yes, really)
    to have intercourse and/or oral sex (that part I can't recall).
     
    The women had a gun.  Even though the man was understandably more
    than a bit afraid for his well-being and was NOT willing to have
    intercourse, he did gain and maintain an erection.  This throws
    some doubt on the theory that if men don't wanna have sex, they
    just don't get an erection.
    
    I really wish I still had the article.  I cannot remember if it
    was in a magazine or in a textbook at school (I am leaning towards
    the latter, however my textbooks are all packed up and away in my
    storage space 3000 miles across the country).  If this is true,
    and I really suspect it is, then the incidence or possibility of
    a male being raped by a female is not impossible, but perhaps only
    uncommon (and probably not reported in any kind of numbers).
    
    Re: manipulation=Rape
    
    I hold with D!.  Manipulation is unfortunate, even less so when
    it succeeds, but it is not rape.  Rape is an act of force, physical.
    I don't believe you can "talk" someone into raping them.
    
    Rape - penetration = sodomy, or so I thought.  Perhaps that applies
    only to acts with a victim under the age of consent.  
    
    ---kim

>    I don't believe you can "talk" someone into raping them.

Do folks who believe this include "threaten" in the category of "talk" or
"coercion"? "Scare"? Or just "plead" and "dissemble"?
	Mez

.225>  Manipulation is unfortunate, even less so when it succeeds, 
.225>  but it is not rape.  

When a man enters his son's bedroom, whispers in his ear that if he 
tells his mother he'll be in very big trouble and will be a very bad 
boy, and the boy closes his eyes and silently allows his father to do
his thing, that is rape.

When a man is on a date with a woman, or heck maybe it's not even a
date, and he mauls her repeatedly and she finally gives in just to 
get the bastard off her back, so to speak, that is rape.

Apparently this has never happened to you.  Rape is not only when a 
pack of knife-wielding thugs jump you in a dark alley or when a man
breaks into your bedroom in the still of the night and forces you to 
have sex with him at gunpoint.  It is sex AGAINST YOUR WILL.

Just because she stops fighting does *NOT* mean a woman is a willing 
participant.

Carla

>       <<< Note 525.226 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "second kiss had a twist" >>>

>	Your definition says otherwise.

	 "My definition" comes from American Heritage Dictionary, New
	 College Edition.


	 feel free to look up Webster's definition.


	 FWIW....when a person is forced to give a male oral sex, I do
	 not believe it's called rape, but rather it falls under some
	 other legal definition that I can't seem to think of at the
	 moment.

	 kath

	 

**.225>  Manipulation is unfortunate, even less so when it succeeds, 
**.225>  but it is not rape.  

>>When a man enters his son's bedroom, whispers in his ear that if he 
>>tells his mother he'll be in very big trouble and will be a very bad 
>>boy, and the boy closes his eyes and silently allows his father to do
>>his thing, that is rape.
    
    Child sexual abuse as a part of discussing manipulation as rape is not
    an accurate or comparable analogy.  Child sexual abuse demonstrates a
    different form of power.  If a child does or does not struggle has no
    bearing on what is to be considered child sexual abuse.  Please, let us
    not confuse the issue of what happens when a child is sexually abused
    vs. what happens when an adult is raped.
                                            

	 RE: .227 and .228

	 Threatening violence/punishment/etc is MUCH different than
	 manipulation.  To threaten someone to the point that they are
	 scared and truly believe the threat would be rape.

         Simple manipulation, like "I'll buy you that if you will have
         sex with me" would NOT be rape.  The person does NOT have to
         submit to manipulation.
	 



	 I think it's VERY important here to define the difference
	 between manipulation and threats.

	 kath

>When a man enters his son's bedroom, whispers in his ear that if he 
>tells his mother he'll be in very big trouble and will be a very bad 
>boy, and the boy closes his eyes and silently allows his father to do
>his thing, that is rape.

Yes. I, and I would guess Kim too, meant rape of a person over the age of
majority.  And I think you knew that's what I (we?) meant.

>When a man is on a date with a woman, or heck maybe it's not even a
>date, and he mauls her repeatedly and she finally gives in just to 
>get the bastard off her back, so to speak, that is rape.

Maul?  What does that mean?  the dictionary says "To beat, as with a hammer,
to tear or bruise."  If that's what you meant, it is most definitely rape,
and I don't think anyone would disagree.  The secondary definition was
"to paw, to mishandle", which is what I think you meant.  If so, I would
venture to disagree.  If he paws, and she says "No, leave me alone" and
continues to paw against her will, then it's rape.  But if he paws, and 
she feels manipulated by his pawing, and things to herself "Fine, then, I'll
give him sex so he'll leave me alone" it isn't.

>Apparently this has never happened to you.

I don't know if it has happened to Kim. It most certainly has happened
to me. I have been with men who's passes were obtrusive, and I thought it
would be easier to give in than to say no.  Yuck.  They were slimy and I
hated myself for giving in.  But they didn't rape me.

>Just because she stops fighting does *NOT* mean a woman is a willing 
>participant.

Did someone say she was?  I said "psychological manipulation".  In the
bit you quoted from the article you responded to said "manipulation".
Devastating though it may be, subcumbing to *psyhological manipulation*
is still a *choice* to do so.  (And remember, I am talking about *adults*
here.  Children don't have the tools to deal with manipulation, and so
it is as effective as force, and is rape.  And no, Mez, I am not including
threats of physical force under the "manipulation" category.)

D!

    I really get tired of hearing how men can be victims too. Yes, it's
    true, but mostly at the hands of other men not women. It seems a
    ploy to somehow make the act less despicable because even though 90%
    of the victims are women there is a very minute possiblity that a
    woman might rape a man. So there, you see, women are guilty too
    seems to be the attitude. How many men really expect to be raped by
    women? I have no idea. How many women really expect they may be
    raped by men? Probably most of us.

    The issue of manipulation is a tough one. I agree that it's not
    really rape in the physical sense. It is in the mental and emotional
    sense. I had an experience of the sort Bonnie mentioned. The guy
    dated me and nagged constantly for sex. I finally gave in and then
    never saw him again. I guess he just wanted to prove he could do it.
    That happened well over 20 years ago and I still remember it with
    distaste. It may not have been rape but it certainly wasn't
    enjoyable sex. And it's somehow still the woman's fault. She's the
    one who "gave in" after all. liesl

I was actually interested in allsorts of threats D!; emotional, financial, as
well as physical. Someone who can without a promotion? Someone who can fire
you? And the job market is depressed? Someone who knows something about you and
can ruin your life by telling? I'm interested in where people draw the line (if
they do indeed draw the line, either clearly or smudgily).

	Mez

    
    in re .233
    
>    The issue of manipulation is a tough one. I agree that it's not
>    really rape in the physical sense. It is in the mental and emotional
>    sense. I had an experience of the sort Bonnie mentioned. The guy
>    dated me and nagged constantly for sex. I finally gave in and then
>    never saw him again. I guess he just wanted to prove he could do it.
>    That happened well over 20 years ago and I still remember it with
>    distaste. It may not have been rape but it certainly wasn't
>    enjoyable sex. And it's somehow still the woman's fault. She's the
>    one who "gave in" after all. liesl


liesl, since you have been brave enough to admit that it happened to
    you I should admit that the story I told
    did happen to me some 27 years ago. I had to eventu�ally go a
    psychologist
to finally deal with it. It was my very first experience with a man,
and it left an incred�ible nasty 'taste' in my mind and heart for years.
It made it very hard for me to truely trust any man afterwards. The
jerk *propsosed* to me! Then dropped me faster than a hot potatoe.

ouch

Bonnie
    
    
    p..s sorry for the weird lines and characters - I'm writing from
    home

>   <<< Note 525.236 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "kick the bass like an NFL punter" >>>

>    what's to stop 
>    her from saying "I said NO, and I mean NO, now STOP!"  ??

	 Because, Mike.  most times it doesn't work.  That's what
	 we've been talking about here.  Sure, sometimes I've said No,
	 and the guy quit, but if I could have a dime for everytime I
	 saw the look "I know you want it, baby" in a guy's eyes, I
	 would be rich.

	 Ideally, yes.  But you're living in a dream world if you
	 think it really happens like that.
	 

>	Is it wrong to think that when a woman says "yes", when she could
>    also say "no", she has consented?

	 Yes.  Especially after numerous "no"s.
	 
	 

         	 kath

    It's attempted rape once the assailant pushes past the first "no".
    Nothing else matters.

	re: .233 (Liesl Kolbe)

	> I really get tired of hearing how men can be victims too.

	THANK YOU, Liesl.   I agree.   
	(and I could care less what the motives are).  

	Especially in topics about rape.

							nancy b.

>   <<< Note 525.238 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "kick the bass like an NFL punter" >>>


>	Numerous `no's aside, what you're telling me, is that "when a
>    woman says `yes', she may really mean `no'" - that the consent given
>    via spoken word may not really be consent.

	 You're changing the meaning of the entire scenario, Mike.
	 The scenario is, when a woman says no REPEATEDLY and a man
	 pushes her, and finally she gives in just to get the bastard
	 off her back, THEN a "yes" of sorts is still a "no."

	 Don't go changing the context of the situation we're
	 discussing.


	 kath
	 


	 

    Well color me confused a bit, too.             
    
    Probably won't make many friends this way, but I agree with what
    Mike_Z was saying.  A yes after many no's may not be a heartfelt,
    "yes I really want it" yes, but a yes is a yes.
    
    I DO NOT, repeat DO NOT mean to lessen the wrongness of feeling
    *forced* to give in, but I'm on Mike's_Z here and don't feel he
    was changing the context.  Circumstance often determines what goes
    on, but I can't, really can't, see saying yes, if you really mean
    no (unless, naturally, your life is in danger).
    
    Re: .228   Nope, I've never been raped.  Never even come in danger
    of it (well, not really).  While it's a given that
    this pretty much devaules any attempt on my part to tell what it's
    like to be raped from personal experience, I don't feel it devalues
    my opinions on the difference between manipulation, threats and
    actual rape.  I'm not attempting to relate the former, I'm discussing
    the latter.
    
     But I think I know, and
    hopefully most everyone else here knows, what I meant when I called
    manipulation just that.  There's a difference between manipulation
    and threats.  Manipulation is just that--rape is something else
    that CAN happen during/before/after rape.  Telling a child he'll
    get in trouble if he says anything is manipulation, but if the father
    didn't proceed with some kind of sexual assault in the example given,
    it wouldn't be sexual assault.  It would be the father manipulating
    the child, and nothing else.  It's highly unlikely that in the example
    cited, manipulation/threats would NOT happen without also having
    a sexual act, but in the scenario's given before, the manipulation
    without the "of course" sex act was separate.  I am specifically
    citing the "If you loved me, you'd...." lines and any other line
    generally given to pressure someone into intercourse.  Disagree
    if you will, but I still hold that you cannot "talk" a rape.  You
    either rape them or you don't.  
                                                          
    .231  Thanks, D! for helping clarify some points I made.
    
    One last note that might not also help make any friends here--I
    really, REALLY don't understand the threads of animosity about men
    being raped to being mentioned here.  No one is trying to turn the
    topic in that direction, and it might be just my perception, but
    I get this feeling that if a man IS raped, it's somehow LESS of
    a tragedy/crime/trauma than if a woman is raped.  Egad.  No one
    is trying to sanctify women being raped by saying "Oh, it's okie,
    men can be raped too".  And yeah, I know this is Womannotes, but
    we've certainly discussed men in here before.  
    
                                                   
    ---kim

Maggie (.239)

>    It's attempted rape once the assailant pushes past the first "no".
>    Nothing else matters.

Depends what you mean by "pushing"?  If he continues to *physically* push
her, paw her, etc, then yes.  If he begs, pleads, or manipulates, if
he "pushes" verbally, then no.

Mez, as far as manipulation goes, yes, there is a line where manipulation
turns in to a threat, and it doesn't have to be a threat of physical violence.
But I am still not sure I'd call it rape if it was a threat of, say, losing
a job.  Now wait, all of you, before you say "What, you think demanding sex
in return for keeping your job is okay?"  No.  I think it sucks.  I think
it's harassment, or it's blackmail, or whatever. It's *bad*, and whats more,
it's *illegal*.  But it isn't rape.  Not *everything* that has to do with
sex that a man shouldn't do to a woman is *rape*.

Kath (.236)
             -< You haven't experienced this as a woman, WE HAVE! >-

I am a woman.  I have experienced this.  As a woman.

>>    what's to stop 
>>    her from saying "I said NO, and I mean NO, now STOP!"  ??

>	 Because, Mike.  most times it doesn't work.  

If it doesn't work, then it's rape.  The possibility that it won't work
doesn't stop a woman from saying it.

As a woman who's been through it, I say if I'm on a date, and the guy
wants to <whatever>, and I say "NO", and he verbally continues to try
to convince me ("C'mon baby, I know you really want it") if he manages to
convince me I want it, and I say "YES", it's not rape.  Slimy, yes.
Manipulative, yes.  Rape, no.

If my boss says to me "I'll give you a bad review unless you sleep with
me", and I sleep with him to get a good review, it's not rape.  Slimy,
yes.  Harrasment, yes.  Illegal, yes.  Rape, no.

>>	Is it wrong to think that when a woman says "yes", when she could
>>    also say "no", she has consented?

>	 Yes.  Especially after numerous "no"s.

No, it isn't wrong.  The smudgy line is in the "when she could also
say 'no'" bit.  At some point, manipulation becomes threat, or passes
become assault, and it's no longer true that "she could also say 'no'."
But I think in the two situations I described, and many others involving
psychological or even financial manipulation, that it hasn't crossed that
line.

D!

>        <<< Note 525.245 by TLE::D_CARROLL "Love is a dangerous drug" >>>


	 We're talking apples and oranges here, D!.  I'm talking a "No
	 No No", threatening situation where you give in because you
	 know you won't get out, and if you resist more, then you
	 could get "hurt."

	 You're talking a "No No No" manipulative situation where
	 there IS a choice.  (BTW, Mike, you're talking this scenario
	 too, while I'm not).  I call this situation slimy,
	 underhanded and disgusting, but not rape because in
	 manipulation, a woman has a CHOICE.  Sure, we feel slimy and
	 gross when we give in, but it's not rape because of that
	 choice.


	 kath

    
    re: slimy and manipulative
    
    i would still call it rape.
    

    
    
    	RE:.229 Kath,
    
    	Any type of forced intercourse is rape.  I went to a self defence
    	course last week and they were saying that even if the person
    	uses an object, finger, or the penis, each time this is done that
    	is ONE account of rape.  One person can be taken to court for
    	several accounts of rape on one person. 
    
    	Zina

	All things being equal and all.  The first NO means no.
	What make a male think that he should continue to try,
	does he not respect and value the feelings of the woman
	he is with.

	Let's try this one more time.

		NO means NO.

	A rational discussion should follow if the man is really
	interested in the feelings of the woman - if he isn't then
	her NO was well founded.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Why is this concept so hard to understand????

	    

>                     <<< Note 525.248 by DASXPS::ZBROWN >>>


	 Zina....

	 I guess I don't understand the reference you're trying to
	 make to my .229.

	 Intercourse (no matter WHAT the object is) is not the same as
	 making a person perform oral sex.  It's not "rape" as such,
	 by definition, I don't believe, but the penalty is the same
	 the name of the offense is just different.

	 I'm NOT disputing what intercourse is (or attempting to
	 imply that it *has* to be a penis).  Rape can occur with any
	 usable device, but I do believe it MUST have penetration, by
	 something, to be called rape.

	 Could you clarify what you're saying in relation to .229,
	 please?

	 kath_confused

	 

The mouth is penetratable, as is the anus.  Or does a man have to
specifically penetrate the vagina for it to be classifed as rape?

Carla

    re: .238 & 244 (Mike Z.)
    
    .238
    
    � Personally, I feel if a woman says `yes', I can safely assume she
    � means `yes', if she says `no', I can safely assume she means `no'.
    
    Agreed.  So, based on that how would you characterise the *man* in
    the scenario of .244:
    
    � .242> The scenario is, when a woman says no REPEATEDLY and a man
    � .242> pushes her, and finally she gives in just to get the bastard
    � .242> off her back, THEN a "yes" of sorts is still a "no."
    � 
    � I can imagine the situation you have in mind.
    � 
    � But, if the woman has the choice to say "NO", without fear of
    � some kind of retaliation, yet she says "yes", for *whatever* reasons,
    � why is she not responsible for that decision?
    
    You seem very focused on the responsibilities of the woman in this 
    situation.  But, if you believe as you said before that "No" means 
    just that, what is the responsibility of the man who pushes beyond
    that?  
    
    Steve

-mike z

I get pissed when my _mom_ asks me the same thing twice. Of course getting
asked for sex twice in a row is even more irritating, stupider, and wronger.
What's so tough about that concept?
	Mez

>       <<< Note 525.252 by BSS::BLAZEK "tripping the light fantastic" >>>
>

>The mouth is penetratable, as is the anus.  Or does a man have to
>specifically penetrate the vagina for it to be classifed as rape?


	 I think we would need a lawyer or something to get the right
	 definition.

	 FWIW.......it would be prosecuted just a rape would be, but
	 I'm not so sure it's called "rape."  The point is moot
	 though....it's a mere matter of semantics.  It would STILL be
	 treated as rape would be, but I don't believe it's called
	 rape.

	 Does that make sense?  But I could be wrong, does anyone know
	 a lawyer?  ;-)


	 kath

>I get pissed when my _mom_ asks me the same thing twice. Of course getting
>asked for sex twice in a row is even more irritating, stupider, and wronger.
>What's so tough about that concept?

Nothing at all.  I never said it wasn't irritating, stupid, or wrong.  I
said it wasn't *rape*.  What's so tough about that concept?

D!

    
    re:.257
    i am struck by the use of the word 'allow'.
    

Sorry D!, I wasn't talking to you (was my reply right after yours?).
	Mez

I suspect that you are going to find that the laws around rape vary from state
to state.  I know that back in the mid 70's (when I was living there) Michigan
completely restructured its rape laws.  In fact, I believe that "rape" was 
discarded as a crime, and was replaced by "first-degree sexual assault",
"second-degree sexual assault", and "third-degree sexual assault".

My vague recollection is that third-degree sexual assault would be something
like (forced) fondling of the genitals or breasts, and first-degree would be
penetration.  Furthermore, I think the definitions were written so as to make
the law "unisex".

	-Neil

    
    i have found this string of replies to be quite distressing...
    
    thinking back to high school/college days when I was dating, I 
    recall saying 'no' and the boy tried again (no Mike not an
    hour later, or day later, maybe 2 minutes later) and, like
    someone else said, I didn't say 'no' then I slapped him across the
    face as hard as I could while I attempted to extricate myself
    from his reach.  Now, in that situation, I could have been
    unlucky and wound up being attacked, but I wasn't.  The fellow
    meekly stood up and left.  
    
    but really....WHY did it take a slap, or a second, or third,
    NO in a span of a few minutes????  why wasn't the first NO enough???
    
    If we all agree that no means no, then there should never be
    any attempt to continue the 'passion'.  If there is, and the
    woman keeps saying no till she's blue in the face then finally
    gives up thinking this idiot will only leave if I say yes...
    well...what a sh***y situation!  I can certainly imagine if
    it were a first date, and you didn't know if the guy would
    turn violent, yeah you might say yes, even though you meant no.
    
    but only after you'd already said NO to begin with.  So, Mike
    no means no....  If you still want it, ask the woman why she
    said no, find out what it means for her to have sex, discuss what
    you think/feel.  Then maybe things will be different...but
    don't keep pushing...that, even though legally may not BE rape
    sure does FEEL like rape.
    
    Let's put some of the 'blame' back on the men...they should stop
    with the first no.  period.  Another day, another time, it may
    be right, but it's not then.  And if they press the issue, 
    continue to 'manipulate' , persuade, cajole...then they are
    at fault.  
    
    that's my 2 cents
    
    deb
    
    
    

    Please do continue the definitional discussion in 961.* rather than
    here.  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

	Re: Definitions

	At least in the State of New York, I believe rape refers to forced
	penile[?]-vaginal intercourse, while vaginal penetration with other
	objects/body parts and oral/anal penile penetration are considered
	sodomy.



	>>AL<<

               <<< $2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 525.261  Side Effects of Rape: Discussion & Responses to 99.*    261 of 264
MOSAIC::TARBET "centimental = halfwit/50"             4 lines  24-JAN-1990 15:42
                        -< <*** Moderator Request ***> >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    961.* is the new string dedicated to the discussion of the definition
    of rap.  Please continue there.
    
    						=maggie

    *Please* take all further definitional discussion to 961.*!
    
    Thank you.
    
    						=maggie

	re: .262  (Deb Alford)

	>    i have found this string of replies to be quite distressing...
 
	me too.  
 
							nancy b.

	 Maggie....it looks like notes collision....why don't you just
	 move the appropriate ones to the correct note.

	 BTW...what version of notes is MOSAIC running?  The newest
	 version supports moving of notes rather easily, but I'm not
	 sure of the syntax.

	 kath

	Oh, by the way, I think rape should be defined as



		Huh?

		What was that you were saying, =maggie?

		Speak up!  You need to talk louder and be a 
		little more direct or maybe say what you want
		to say a little more plainly, ya know?
		Maybe saying NO 5 times fast will work.

		Or perhaps you don't really know what you're
		trying to say?

		But GEEZ do you have to be such an OGRESS about it !?!

    
    re:'allow'
    a woman should have the choice of what she wants to do, sexually or
    otherwise, without having to be 'allowed' by some man.
    
    re:.241
    i would submit that when the man in this example leans over and kisses
    the woman, after she has said 'no, i don't want to park', he has in
    essence committed rape.
    

    "allow" was used in the sense that men should "allow" women
    to choose. Men should *recognize and respect the moman's right* 
    to choose. Men don't 'allow' women to have rights any more
    than the government 'allows' us to have rights. We *have*
    rights. We must insist that government and fellow citizen alike
    recognize and respect our rights, else people can not live together
    as free individuals.
    

Reading over the last 70-ish [?!] replies brings back to me quite vividly why
I chose not to prosecute ... or more accurately, why prosecuting seemed
like the equivalent of emotional suicide ... when I was raped by a friend.

I did indeed submit.  I never agreed or said 'yes', but I did give up fighting.
Some said that this was implied consent.  Horse pucky!

Was I engaging in risky behaviours?  Apparently so ... I had dinner with an old
friend and we were continuing a conversation in my own home [*GasP*].

I heard about the shadings and gradations of 'no' until I thought I would commit
mayhem!  I was asked if I found the man physically attractive [trick question],
as if that made the slightest difference.

Oh, indeed, everyone felt that the man had been _most_ ungentlemanly to force
himself upon my unwilling self; but certainly I couldn't delude myself that it
was something as nasty as rape.

So much energy is spent in determining whether or not a particular series of
events constitutes 'rape.'  I think that is ultimately harmful.  So long as 
the discussion of what it _is_ persists, we don't have to really look at it.

Rape is an ugly, ugly thing.  The tendency is to never willingly look directly
upon its ugliness.  People really _don't_ want to know, even if they feel they
_must_ know.  But if we do not look and act, we will never make progress.

Brushing aside something as 'not _rape_' is an excuse and an evasion.  What does
it matter?  [aside from the legal]  Physical force, threats, coercion ... 
compelling another person to a sexual act is heinous ... and not just 'a little'
heinous ... whatever we choose to call it.

   Ann

    In your place, Nancy, I'd do the same thing, I think.  Plus have my
    phone number changed!
    
    						=maggie

    re .50 Nancy you're not being mean, there are some things
    that you simply can't forgive. (There's a few on my life-
    long sh*tlist.) 
    
    Someone once said 'to forgive is divine' but we're only human.
    
    Dana

    I'm re-opening this string in hope that the definitional discussion
    will stay in 961.* where it belongs.               
    
    						=maggie

    Nancy, I was going to ask the same thing, but the note was still
    write-locked. 
    
    How is it your responsibility to keep him from feeling bad about
    treating you badly?   
    
    Maybe that's how he wants you to think, but his feelings are HIS
    problem.  They're not yours.  (You've got enough of your own.)
    
    Getting an unlisted number, or changing the number, won't do much
    good if you've got friends who are willing to give him the number. 
    You might try buying or renting an answering machine and leaving
    it hooked up all the time.  That way you can screen your calls and
    only return the ones from friends. 
    
    --bonnie

	 What I wanted to say the other day when this was write-locked
	 is that we ALL make mistakes that effect other people's
	 lives.

	 Nancy go hurt pretty badly by this guy, and her reactions are
	 very understandable.

         Where I in Nancy's place, however, and someone that had hurt
         me like this was making attempts at explaining/talking about
         it, I would make every possible attempt to listen to them
         objectively.  Because being angry at them for hurting me
         would be festering inside of me.  And anger is something that
         I feel needs to be worked through, not left alone to build.


	 Forgiveness might not be possible in any case, but at least I
	 would feel better about working thru it....and have.

	 My motto is that we all make mistakes and it's better to be
	 able to face those mistakes than to hide from them.


	 kath

    Another route:
    
    He hurt Nancy by not being there when she needed him.  Maybe he didn't
    understand how much someone could be hurt if you left them alone when
    they needed a friend.
    
    Maybe Nancy's refusal to deal with him might show him how it feels 
    whan the person you need to talk with won't listen, and maybe he'd be
    more willing to stick around in the future if someone needed his help.
    
    If he calls again, maybe make it clear that he wasn't around when
    you needed him so you have no obligation to listen to his problems.
    And that he might want to think about how troubled he feels now the
    next time someone needs his help.  
    
    You learn the most from your own experiences.......
    
    Just a suggestion......
    
    Lisa

    Of course he thinks she should listen and forgive! She's a woman,
    it's her nature and duty to do so. How dare she rebuff him when
    he decides (after a long safe interval) to say "hey, sorry about
    deserting you when you needed me the most, you know how it is".

    It's his karma now and he will have to live with it. What goes
    around comes around. Maybe next time he's in a terrible situation
    he'll make the right choice. liesl

re: .277 (Herb Nichols)

> I hope he cares enough about you to write you a letter!
 
	Yea, I think a letter would be easier to take at this point
	than a phone call...   

re: .279 (Mary Dougherty)

>   IMO, *you* are not responsible for providing your ex-boyfriend 
>   with a way of getting things off his chest!  Why do you feel 
>   that you have to "take care of him" in this situation!?!?!?!?!?
                      
	I dunno for sure... I think because I really loved him a lot for
	a long time.  Also because the thought of me causing another person 
	mental anguish doesn't sit very well...  I wouldn't wish pain
	similar to what I've experienced from his rejecting me after being 
	raped on anybody, even him.  
    

re: .280 (Bonnie Randall)

>    How is it your responsibility to keep him from feeling bad about
>    treating you badly?   
 
	Because, more than anyone else, I could help him to not feel as bad
	about what he did by saying that I'm glad he called and letting him
	talk with me. 
   
>    but his feelings are HIS problem.  They're not yours.  
>    (You've got enough of your own.)
 
	Well, gee, Bonnie, THANKS :-). 
	
	It may seem like I have a lot of problems, but I honestly had 
	had/am living a very wonderful and fun life.  My mom always said 
	that "everyone has their cross to bear," meaning that everyone 
	has certain hardships.  This is mine.  
   
re: .281 (Kathy Gallup)

>         Where I in Nancy's place, however, and someone that had hurt
>         me like this was making attempts at explaining/talking about
>         it, I would make every possible attempt to listen to them
>         objectively.  

	A couple of days after the first time he called me, that was what I
	decided to do if he called again.  But it didn't work like that when
	I heard him on the phone the second time.

>	 My motto is that we all make mistakes and it's better to be
>	 able to face those mistakes than to hide from them.

	Kath, I don't quite follow what you mean... Could you elaborate?


re: .282 (Lisa Gassaway)   -< A taste of his own medicine. >-
    
>    Maybe Nancy's refusal to deal with him might show him how it feels 
>    whan the person you need to talk with won't listen, and maybe he'd be
>    more willing to stick around in the future if someone needed his help.
 
	Thanks, Lisa!  Putting it in that frame-of-reference enables me to
	feel not so bad about not being able to talk with him.  I couldn't
	think of a true benefit of me behaving like that, but I think you
	found one.  Maybe this "lesson" will make him think twice before he
	runs out on someone in need again.
   
>    If he calls again, maybe make it clear that he wasn't around when
>    you needed him so you have no obligation to listen to his problems.

	I'll have to practice that so that I just don't hang-up again (it 
	really was practically a reflex!)

re: .283 (Liesl Kolbe)

>    Of course he thinks she should listen and forgive! She's a woman,
>    it's her nature and duty to do so. 

	That might have just a _little_ bit to do with it :^).

>  How dare she rebuff him when he decides (after a long safe interval) 
>  to say "hey, sorry about deserting you when you needed me the most, 
>  you know how it is".

	Yea, he did seem surprised by my unwillingness to listen...

>   Maybe next time he's in a terrible situation he'll make the right choice.

	Yes, hopefully.

							nancyb.

>     <<< Note 525.284 by KEISAN::NANCYB "all my instincts, they return" >>>


>>	 My motto is that we all make mistakes and it's better to be
>>	 able to face those mistakes than to hide from them.
>
>	Kath, I don't quite follow what you mean... Could you elaborate?



	 My understanding from what you wrote is that he is trying to
	 face is mistakes and you are not particularly letting him do
	 that.

	 Perhaps to expand on my statement...we all make mistakes but
	 it take a strong person to be able to face those mistakes.
	 And a willingness to grow beyond those mistakes.

	 I don't feel you're allowing him the chance to really face
	 his mistake.  He hurt you, and it seems to me that he wants
	 to work thru what he did.  You're not giving him the chance
	 to work thru that by hanging up on him.

	 I'm not sayinng forgive the guy or anything, but maybe
	 allowing him to work thru his mistake of hurting you will
	 allow you to work thru your hurt that he caused.

	 I find it better to face an adversary, not avoid it and hide
	 from it.

	 JMO if i were in your place (and was at one time)


	 kath

re: Nancy
    
    >>    but his feelings are HIS problem.  They're not yours.  
>>    (You've got enough of your own.)
> 
>	Well, gee, Bonnie, THANKS :-). 
>	
>	It may seem like I have a lot of problems, but I honestly had 
    
    Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean this quite the way it came out -- it
    was a casual platitude, not a reference to your life in
    particular.  Like in, we've each got enough things to deal with in
    our own lives without taking over someone else's problems, too. 
    
    >>    How is it your responsibility to keep him from feeling bad about
>>    treating you badly?   
> 
>	Because, more than anyone else, I could help him to not feel as bad
>	about what he did by saying that I'm glad he called and letting him
>	talk with me. 
    
    I was trying to get at the same thing that Leisl said more
    bluntly, that you seem to be taking on responsibility for making
    him feel better just because you're the woman and that's your job,
    no matter how badly he failed you and hurt you.  
    
    If he wants to work through his failure, that's his lookout.  You
    don't have any responsibility to make it easier for him.  If you
    want to, if you're really glad to hear from him, well, that's up
    to you, obviously, but if you're not glad he called, what kind of
    favors are you doing him by telling him you are?  You'd only be
    contributing to a belief that he can treat you badly and not have
    to pay any consequences because you'll still be there waiting for
    him, understanding how it workds.
    
    If he needs somebody to talk to, offer to refer him to a good
    counsellor.  I'm sure the womannotes community can come up with
    several suggestions . . .
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s. I'm not advocating that you not forgive him, but I don't
    think forgiveness requires that one be a doormat for the person
    who wronged one. 

    I completely agree that you have ZERO responsibility to help him "work
    through" anything, Nancy, Kath's implicit argument to the contrary
    notwithstanding.  If he has to live unforgiven with his small piece of
    that whole rotten episode, as (Liesl?) said maybe he'll get a better
    grip on reality and act more responsibly next time. 
    
    						=maggie

>                     <<< Note 525.287 by MOSAIC::TARBET >>>

>    that whole rotten episode, as (Liesl?) said maybe he'll get a better
>    grip on reality and act more responsibly next time. 

	 Or maybe he's start fostering a little anger of his own at
	 not being allowed to just talk it out with her.  Anger and
	 guilt can fester into something terribly awful.

	 Guilt doesn't always foster responsibility, it could just as
	 easily turn him into the next rapist thru anger.


	 Ya, see?  It's not as easy as just "making him pay."  I saw a
	 friend in high school cheat on his girlfriend, she found and
	 and never let him explain.  His guilt festered into anger and
	 now he's in prison for attempted murder (her's).

	 It doesn't always happen the way we would like it to happen,
	 ya know?

	 kath

    Kath, maybe he'll be angry with her *anyway*.  Suppose he wants to
    sleep with her, should she agree just because otherwise he might get
    angry?  Supposing he wants her to say that he behaved well and that it
    was all her fault?  Should she agree to that?  Where does it stop?  
    
    						=maggie

    On the other hand, Kath, it may not be possible for a victim to be able
    to deal with this particular side effect of rape with any charity at
    all.  For me, real charity, requires some level of forgiveness and a
    willingness to see the other person's side.  When I'm so wounded by
    an incident that I have my hands full trying to deal with my own anger
    and hurt just to survive I really am not capable of mustering up the
    energy required to attempt any kind of forgiveness or even sympathy,
    much less empathy, towards someone who was involved in my hurt in any
    way.  Once my healing is completed, then I may be able to walk in the
    other person's shoes if I so choose, but it has to be free choice, not
    an obligation because it's the "right" or "charitable" thing to do. 
    Otherwise I do it under duress and, while it may make the other person
    feel better, I have once again given up a part of myself unwillingly
    which will probably open up the old wounds.
    
    Nanci   

Were *I* in the situation, I would most likely have talked to the turk...er,
man when he called (at least the second time.)  In some way I agree with Kath...
I think there is a lot of anger and guilt and hurt out there in the world,
and when I can, I try to reduce it.

However, if talking to him would hurt you more than it would help him, then
doing so would *increase* the hurt and anger in the world, which would defeat
the point. I think a lot of people forget when they talk about helping people
that "people" includes *yourself*, and the world is not benefitted by your
helping someone else at severe cost to yourself.

Also, deciding to talk to him out of concern for him, while perhaps a 
generous and even altruistic thing to do is certainly not your *responsibility.*
You have no obligation whatsoever to help someone at cost to yourself.  In
ethics class we called such actions "superogatory actions", and no one can
condemn you for not performing them.  Even if what Kath suggested was true,
that his anger/guilt will fester into something truly harmful, that is neither
your fault nor your responsibility.  The responsibility lies with him alone,
and that is not affected by your choice of whether or not to help him carry
that burden.  If you choose to, you might be making the world a better place.
Or you might not.  If you choose not to, no one can condemn you for not taking
on a burden that rightfully belongs to someone else.

If you still feel bad that you didn't talk to him, perhaps you can write him
a note explaining that you aren't comfortable talking to him, but if he wants
to write you a letter to get things of his chest, he may.

D!

>                     <<< Note 525.289 by MOSAIC::TARBET >>>

	 Maggie.  You KNOW I didn't say that, so I would appreciate
	 you not implying that I did.

	 
>    Kath, maybe he'll be angry with her *anyway*.  Suppose he wants to
>    sleep with her, should she agree just because otherwise he might get
>    angry?  Supposing he wants her to say that he behaved well and that it
>    was all her fault?  Should she agree to that?  Where does it stop?  


	 I'm NOT asking Nancy to forgive him for ANYTHING!  I'm simply
	 pointing out that it might be better for BOTH PARTIES
	 INVOLVED if they talked THRU their anger and their hurt and
	 the situation.

	 Nancy has a PRIME opportunity to educate someone here on rape
	 and it's effects.  She can either choose to do it, or she can
	 choose not to.

	 Nancy doesn't have to agree to do anything, I am just stating
	 that were *I* in the same situation (which I HAVE been) *I*
	 would talk with him and allow him to work thru this problems,
	 not let them fester inside of him with guilt.

	 However NANCY is not KATHY and NANCY can do anything she damn
	 well pleases.


	 Thank you, I'm sick of this.

	 kath

>         <<< Note 525.291 by TLE::D_CARROLL "My place is of the sun" >>>

>          -< I would have talked (but can understand why you didn't) >-

	 I can understand why she didn't want to too.  I mean, I've
	 been there, in the same situation, I know what it's like,
	 Nancy.
	 
>Also, deciding to talk to him out of concern for him, while perhaps a 
>generous and even altruistic thing to do is certainly not your *responsibility.*

	 Ahhh, I see now where the misunderstanding comes in.  I'm not
	 implying Nancy shuld talk to him "out of concern for him",
	 but rather out of "concern for herself."  When it comes to my
	 feelings I'me a purely selfish person.  My feelings and my
	 well being MUST come before another in almost every instance.

	 In my situation, he wanted to talk about it, to work thru his
	 being a heel, and I did it, but I did it for ME!!!!  Because
	 I was overcome with anger against him because HE left me.  My
	 anger for him was so bad that it was effecting my other
	 relationships with good, kind men.  Talking to him was purely
	 selfish for me.  I wanted to see that he really hurt, I
	 wanted him to see what he had done to me.
	 
>that his anger/guilt will fester into something truly harmful, that is neither
>your fault nor your responsibility.  The responsibility lies with him alone,


         True.  Not her responibility at all.  But to be aware of what
         might come to pass is always nice.  If I see a drunk passed
         out on the railroad tracks, do I not pull him off because
         it's not my fault he got drunk and passed out there? (Let's
         assume that I'm violently against drinking.  It's a mortal
         sin). After all, he might wake up in time to get off the
         tracks before a train comes.

	 

	 Or perhaps he won't.

	 kath

Sounds like a difficult situation for everyone (including some of the
people entering replies so far ;-).

I'm sure Nancy knows in her heart of hearts what to do.  I'm not sure
an answer can be given based on logic, rationality, or pyschological
theory.  I believe that if you can get some quietness and stillness,
the right thing to do will always appear and also that I can never
tell another what that thing is (altough I could give my opinion on
what I think I might do).

This reminds me of something that I have been struggling lately around
the emotion of anger.  I used to think that anger was bad and that I
should always act the saint and not express anger or at least tone it
down.  Of course, it sometimes ends out coming out in other ways.  I
used to do this in the belief that that would "help" the other person.
Of course, a lot of it was a fear of expressing anger and what would
happen if I did.  Now, I see that anger arises and that you can notice
it and not get to invested in its permanance and reality.  What to do
with it is another question.  But if it's there, it's there.  It's an
emotion and I find that basically its a physical sensation in my body
(this is anger itself and not all the thoughts that get woven around
it).

I think it is sometimes appropriate to express it and sometimes not.
I try and let the little things pass.  And I try to express it as soon
and as naturally as possible before the anger has been transformed
into something else through thinking about it (like irritation or
hostility).

And I think that there is a skillful way of expressing anger without
passing a lot of judgements on the other person (which as far as I can
tell is something that comes from thinking about anger).  But just
saying I am angry and here is why.  Many times it turns out the here's
why part if a misunderstanding on my part, a communication breakdown, or
really something in myself that I don't want to look at and that I am
projecting onto another.  However, sometimes we have a good reason to
be angry and I don't see anything wrong with letting the other person
involved know what our emotional state is.  In fact, this can really
be helpful to the other person!

Sometimes I need time before I can forgive and let go of my investment
in my own anger and sometimes I wish it was sooner but wishing doesn't
seem to change very much.  

john

>Once my healing is completed, then I may be able to walk in the
>    other person's shoes if I so choose, but it has to be free choice, not
>    an obligation because it's the "right" or "charitable" thing to do. 

 Can you really be fully healed when unresolved feelings remain? I tend to think
that in order to reach a fullness of healing, the final feelings stashed in
the most remote corners of the psyche must be addressed.

 Whether Nancy talks to her ex-boyfriend or not is almost immaterial to the
healing process itself. The biggest obstacle to getting over her trauma of
having her boyfriend leave her during a very stressful time in her life is
her unresolved feelings regarding his behavior. And she can approach this
obstacle from a number of ways. It is not necessary to grant the boy absolution
to help her heal. She probably should address her feelings in some way, however.

 The reason to deal with this aspect of her past is not because it is the
consensus "right thing to do," not because she has any particular need to be
magnanimous, not because his feelings are as important as hers or anything
else of that nature. The reason to deal with him is because she harbors feelings
for him that she has stashed away that remain unresolved. To fully heal herself
she should address these feelings, possibly including him in the process (which
may indeed hasten the healing in addition to allowing him to deal with his
unresolved feelings.)

 Nancy has already heard the rest of what I have to offer.

 The Doctah

    I'm really bothered by the idea that if someone hurts me terribly
    I'd better forgive him or even listen to him or there may be hell to
    pay later. What a rotten reason to try and forgive someone. It
    places blame on the victim all over again.

    It makes me think of "be a nice girl" no matter what. Your feelings
    don't count. Yes, kath, I KNOW that's not what you said later but
    that's the *feeling* I got from your note. Make "nice,nice" or
    the boy may get ugly. What if the victim's healing requires her to
    tell this person that he was a "coldhearted SOB and he should rot in
    hell"? That might make him hate women and rape somebody too. Now
    what?

    I agree that healing requires you to make peace within your soul.
    And that holding feelings of hate and bitterness make that hard if
    not impossible to do. The catch is that sometimes what you have to
    let go is the feeling that you are responsible for everything. I
    think that women (myself very much included) have a tendancy to take
    the blame for everything when it comes to relationships. That we are
    seen as responsible for making it easy emotionaly for the men in our
    lives. That's an awful heavy burden to bear. liesl

>What if the victim's healing requires her to
>    tell this person that he was a "coldhearted SOB and he should rot in
>    hell"? 

 Then that is by definition 'the right thing to do.'

>That might make him hate women and rape somebody too. Now what?

 That is his problem. If he reacts in such an antisocial manner he needs to
be held responsible for that. He has not been forced to act that way; it was
a choice.

>That we are
>    seen as responsible for making it easy emotionaly for the men in our
>    lives. That's an awful heavy burden to bear. 

 I'd bet.

 The Doctah

    <--(.295)
    
�    Can you really be fully healed when unresolved feelings remain? I tend
�    to think that in order to reach a fullness of healing, the final
�    feelings stashed in the most remote corners of the psyche must be
�    addressed.
    
    Psychologists are almost evenly divided on this issue, Mark, with a
    slight majority favoring your position but not, of course, because it
    results in higher fees :-)
    
�   ...to grant the boy absolution...
    
    _Nice_ shot, Mark!  And well-aimed.
    
    						=maggie

>        <<< Note 525.296 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>

>    It makes me think of "be a nice girl" no matter what. Your feelings
>    don't count. Yes, kath, I KNOW that's not what you said later but
>    that's the *feeling* I got from your note. Make "nice,nice" or


	 You're right liesl, that's not what I said.


	 k

.296> TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante"             22 lines  30-JAN-1990 19:45
>
>    I'm really bothered by the idea that if someone hurts me terribly
>    I'd better forgive him or even listen to him or there may be hell to
>    pay later. What a rotten reason to try and forgive someone. It
>    places blame on the victim all over again.

Liesl, I don't think Kathy or anyone else HERE is saying that. What I
believe Kathy and others are saying is to tell him how you feel about
what he did. I see it that they are advising Nancy to express to him
how much pain it caused her when he abandoned her at the moment she
needed him most. Perhaps he realizes the wrong of what he did and
wants to apologize? Perhaps he is seeking forgiveness? Perhaps he doesn't 
realize why Nancy is angry? All that is being advocated is for Nancy 
to express to him in words the pain he caused her by what he did. 
Then let him sort it out. If he's a decent guy then he should realize the 
wrong of what he did and perhaps won't do it again if faced with a similar 
situation. If he doesn't realize why he caused her pain, and what it was 
he did that are wrong then he might just react the same way next time he's 
faced with a difficult situation.
Nancy doesn't have to give him forgiveness if she doesn't feel he is
deserving of it.

>    the boy may get ugly. What if the victim's healing requires her to
>    tell this person that he was a "coldhearted SOB and he should rot in
>    hell"?

As the Doctah said, if that's what Nancy feels is the right thing to
do, then so be it.

>    I agree that healing requires you to make peace within your soul.
>    And that holding feelings of hate and bitterness make that hard if
>    not impossible to do.

That gets back to what was proposed. Not giving forgiveness, but 
COMMUNICATING your feelings. Telling what it was that hurt you and
why. We're talking adults here. Don't play games "I'll teach you".
You don't have to forgive the person and shouldn't if you feel that
the case. Communicate why you feel the way you do. You can tell him 
that because of his actions you feel betrayed and let down. That you
no longer feel you can count on such a person and therefore don't see 
any purpose to a friendship or relationship with that person, if that's
how you feel. But through communication at least you can gain the peace
of mind in knowing you have told him how what he did hurt you. Then it
is up to him how that knowledge gets put to future use.

>    The catch is that sometimes what you have to
>    let go is the feeling that you are responsible for everything. I
>    think that women (myself very much included) have a tendancy to take
>    the blame for everything when it comes to relationships. That we are
>    seen as responsible for making it easy emotionaly for the men in our
>    lives. That's an awful heavy burden to bear. liesl

Being an adult and acting responsibly is a heavy burden on a man or a
woman. It is much easier to act the child. But most of the pain in this
world seems to be caused by people who don't/won't take responsibility
for their actions. Wouldn't this world be such a better place if everyone
took responsibility for their actions and communicated better? 
It's too bad that all too often it is the woman who takes on the 
responsible role. This doesn't mean however that you, women, should
feel responsible for taking on "blame for everything when it comes to
relationships". Perhaps through better communications skills and
expressing your feelings you can "teach" men to take on our share
of the responsibility. There are those of us who try.
Communication starts with each one of us. Do your part.


Brad
    

>MOSAIC::TARBET                                        7 lines  30-JAN-1990 09:56
.287>
>    I completely agree that you have ZERO responsibility to help him "work
>    through" anything, Nancy, Kath's implicit argument to the contrary
>    notwithstanding.  If he has to live unforgiven with his small piece of
>    that whole rotten episode, as (Liesl?) said maybe he'll get a better
>    grip on reality and act more responsibly next time. 
>    
>    						=maggie


 I agree that Nancy has zero responsibility to help him "work through"
anything. I don't agree that by not communicating how his neglect
hurt Nancy that "maybe he'll get a better grip on reality and act more
responsibly next time".
 Let me make an analogy. Perhaps a bad one but I'll try.
 You leave your dog home unattended all day. You come home and find that
it has chewed on your sofa. You yell at the dog and hit it. The dog
has no idea why you are yelling at it and what it did wrong. How is
it going to learn from this? If you caught the dog in the act of chewing
on the sofa and yelled at and slapped it, the dog might get the idea not
to do this again.
 What I'm saying is that if you communicate/explain why what he did
hurt you so terribly then it might sink in if he's a decent caring guy.
You don't have to forgive him. Explain yourself and tell him you choose
not to have any further dealing with him if you wish.
 By not explaining yourself he might truly not understand why you
are mad at him and thus learn nothing from the experience.
 I had a girlfriend once that used the silence treatment with me. 
I never knew why she was mad when she was. Perhaps the only thing
I did learn from it is how important communication is and to look
for and value a woman who know how to express her feelings with
words rather than by playing games.

Brad
    

    Brad, your analogy does indeed fail badly:  it suggests that since she
    didn't tell him at the time how she felt, it's too late to do it now.
    
    But your position is flawed in another, more important way:  you
    presume that there is no communication occurring when Nancy slammed
    down the phone.  Surely, on reflection, you don't believe that?
    
    						=maggie

There's a large piece of art [5ft x 7ft] called 'Faces ... of Annie' hanging
in some stranger's home.  It is a collage [?] in oil and pastel taken from a
myriad of pen & ink and pencil sketches of me in my various moods drawn during
the eight months I lived with the man who raped me 18 months after he moved
out.

Someone who doesn't know about the rape sent me and article on its sale thinking
I'd be tickled at such residual affection.

After puking and then getting swokked as a moat-monster followed by more
puking, I called the fine piece of pond-scum and asked him nicely to buy
the damned thing back and burn it.

He says he can understand why I feel this way, but that he found its creation
to be marvelously cleansing.  Isn't that just ducky?  And that the proceeds from
the sale made for a lovely vacation in Antigua.

Wow, I know that _I_ feel emancipated just knowing that I'm finally out of his
system......

RE .302

>MOSAIC::TARBET                                        8 lines   2-FEB-1990 09:51
>    Brad, your analogy does indeed fail badly:  it suggests that since she
>    didn't tell him at the time how she felt, it's too late to do it now.

No Maggie, that's not the point of my analogy. With a dog, cat, etc. you
can not explain why you are mad at them. You can not tell them why what
they did is wrong, unless you're Dr. Maggie Dolittle  ;-)
Therefore you must show an animal your displeasure with what they did
at the moment they are doing it. Otherwise they will sense your anger
but not know the reason behind it. Thus learning nothing. THAT is
the point I was trying to make.
 With humans we have the wonderful ability to communicate our feelings
and reasoning with words. The point I was trying to make with my analogy
was that if he doesn't understand why she is angry with him then he
won't learn from his mistake. Unlike with an animal that won't remember
what incident it is that you are yelling at them about, it can be
explained that the reason Nancy is angry with him is because he deserted
her when she needed him most. She can explain why that hurt her so much.
He may not have a clue as to why she is angry or her reasoning. He may
just feel she hates all men now. It *might* help Nancy to express her
feelings of anger to him. It *might* help him to be more sensitive the
next time he's faced with someone needing his help. But only if the
issue is discussed and he understands why she's angry.

    
>    But your position is flawed in another, more important way:  you
>    presume that there is no communication occurring when Nancy slammed
>    down the phone.  Surely, on reflection, you don't believe that?
>    
>    						=maggie


Maggie, I truly hope that is not how you choose to communicate. All that
is communicated is anger. Not the reason behind the anger. Someone can only
learn from their mistakes if they know what those mistakes were.
We humans have the wonderful ability to express feelings with words, as I
stated above. So why not use words rather than play silly childish games
and hope someone else can second guess the correct reason for your actions?
 I don't believe anything productive was communicated through slamming down
the phone. Surely, on reflection, you don't believe anything was?

Brad
    

    Brad,
    
    I hope you don't really think that when Nancy slammed down the phone
    that she was playing a ~silly, unproductive game~.
    
    It was very clear to me that that was her immediate, un-thought-out
    response.  It's one I've made myself.  The alternative, in my case,
    would have meant burst blood vessels in my throat, or little chips
    ground off my teeth, or something else equally un-useful.  Now,
    if what you wished to object to is someone following the dictates
    of her (or his) subconscious mind, please say so.  It is a different
    matter entirely.
    
    Further, I see no reason to believe that Nancy did not make clear the
    cause of her displeasure at the time he incurred it.  If he cannot
    remember, then his problems are far greater than *any* layman could
    expect to even work on.  (In fact, I believe he indicated that he
    actually understood her complaint, so that point is moot.)
    
    Since the end of any deep relationship takes at least two years
    to heal, and since a termination by betrayal (from (I'm guessing)
    Nancy's viewpoint) is more traumatic than most, I would say that
    Nancy has a good long time to go before it would be considerate,
    or even legitimate, to suggest that Nancy communicate with her
    former boyfriend.
    
    Do you understand me?
    
    							Ann B.

    We don't necessarily know the details of the situation.  It seems that
    the general assumption is that Nancy and her ex did NO communicating at
    the time the rift occurred.  I.e., he did a fade and they never saw
    each other or spoke again until he called.  Therefore her not letting
    him explain what happened and why he did what he did ("I had ... er ...
    AMNESIA, yeah, that's the ticket, AMNESIA...") is seen as bad
    communication skills.
    
    Seems like a pretty big assumption to me.  
    
    MY assumption is that something horrible happened to her, he didn't
    support her emotionally, they had arguments, he did a fade, and is now
    seeking absolution.  My assumption is that he DOES know what he did
    wrong before, so talking to him about it now (particularly since her
    first uncontrollable instinct is to slam down the phone) is more for
    his sake than hers.
    
    In my view, it is entirely up to Nancy as to whether she gives him a
    hearing or not.  They no longer have a relationship. There is no such
    thing as "bad communication" in a non-relationship. I agree that it
    might be helpful for both of them to talk.  I agree that it might be
    hurtful, too.  AND I agree that some people need to have "done unto
    them what they have done unto others" before they truly understand what
    it is they have done to others.  So we don't always know what the right
    thing to do is in every individual situation.
    
    Since we're all giving advice here (!):  Nancy, do what feels right to
    you!  (big help, huh!)
    
    Pam

RE .305
>REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."              29 lines   2-FEB-1990 16:50
    
>    I hope you don't really think that when Nancy slammed down the phone
>    that she was playing a ~silly, unproductive game~.

 :-(  Your right. I didn't say that, but it was inferred. I was out
     of place to infer that. Her reaction was a gut reaction that 
     couldn't be controlled. Sorry. 
 
>    It was very clear to me that that was her immediate, un-thought-out
>    response.  It's one I've made myself.  

Shhhhh!!! me too.

>    Now,
>    if what you wished to object to is someone following the dictates
>    of her (or his) subconscious mind, please say so.  It is a different
>    matter entirely.

You are right. It's easy to say what the *right* thing to do is, AFTER the
fact. Not so easy to do the right thing in the heat of the moment.
    
>    Further, I see no reason to believe that Nancy did not make clear the
>    cause of her displeasure at the time he incurred it.  If he cannot

This I don't know. Only she and he might.

>    (In fact, I believe he indicated that he
>    actually understood her complaint, so that point is moot.)

So be it.
    
>    Since the end of any deep relationship takes at least two years
>    to heal, and since a termination by betrayal (from (I'm guessing)
>    Nancy's viewpoint) is more traumatic than most, I would say that
>    Nancy has a good long time to go before it would be considerate,
>    or even legitimate, to suggest that Nancy communicate with her
>    former boyfriend.

If he does indeed know the reason for her anger then I agree there is
no further benefit to be gained. It is up to her as to whether she
feels the need to explain her feelings to him or not. It's up to her
to decide if she feels that doing so will produce any productive benefit
to herself or him. 
    
 >   Do you understand me?
 >    							Ann B.
 
Yup, Loud and clear. :-)


Re .306
>CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!"           30 lines   2-FEB-1990 17:06
>                       -< Follow instincts, not theory >-

 Well, it's sad but all too true. In the heat of the moment theory all to often
goes out the window first.
    
>    MY assumption is that something horrible happened to her, he didn't
>    support her emotionally, they had arguments, he did a fade, and is now
>    seeking absolution. 

You could very well be correct. Only through communication will she know.
I understand she must be ready to deal with talking to him, which 
apparently she is not.

>   My assumption is that he DOES know what he did
>    wrong before, so talking to him about it now (particularly since her
>    first uncontrollable instinct is to slam down the phone) is more for
>    his sake than hers.

It would be for her sake if it helped HER feel better to express herself
verbally.
    
>    In my view, it is entirely up to Nancy as to whether she gives him a
>    hearing or not.  

I TOTALLY agree. If she doesn't feel she can handle talking with him then
then she shouldn't face the pain. It's easy for me to sit here and say
how "childish" it is to slam the phone, but I'd be lying if I said I have
never done that myself.

>   There is no such thing as "bad communication" in a non-relationship. 

I disagree. How do you think wars start?  :-(

>    AND I agree that some people need to have "done unto
>    them what they have done unto others" before they truly understand what
>    it is they have done to others.  

Yes this is very true.
    
>    Since we're all giving advice here (!):  Nancy, do what feels right to
>    you!  (big help, huh!)
>    Pam

THAT is the best advice.

Brad
    

    I'm kind of amazed at this..
    
    but for anyone who has read =wn= or followed any of these discussions
    at all seriously, to speculate on what the horrible thing that
    happened to Nancy that caused her to hang up on her ex, esp given
    the context of the note that she is writing in, amazes me.
    
    Nancy was raped and her SO, when she most needed to be simply
    held and loved and told she was all right, abandoned her.
    
    I'd have a hard time forgiving such a person myself.
    
    Bonnie��

>    <<< Note 525.308 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "if you are a dreamer, come in.." >>>

>    I'd have a hard time forgiving such a person myself.


	 How many times do we have to say that NOT A SINGLE PERSON in
	 here (that I know of) has EVER said that Nancy should forgive
	 this guy.

	 Not a one....the implication is purely yours (and others).

	 There is a BIG difference between talking to someone and
	 forgiving someone.  There is a BIG difference between working
	 out your own problems and giving absolution to another
	 person's problems.




	 kath

	 

    
    I'm having a difficult time believing that people are discussing what
    Nancy did and what she didn't do and what she might have done better,
    as if anyone can know better than she.  It seems really rude to me, 
    like talking about someone instead of to them, when they're standing 
    right there.
    
    CQ   

>                <<< Note 525.310 by LEZAH::QUIRIY "Christine" >>>



	 If Nancy didn't want the pros and cons of the situation
	 discussed, then I find it highly doubtful she would have put
	 anything in this notesfile.


	 kath

Personally, I have been known to turn to notesfiles for support, not debate,
though I always kick myself for such silly instincts after the fact.
	Mez

    Kath, maybe you're right.  And this is, after all, the discussion note,
    so I guess that's what it's here for.  I've just felt uncomfortable, 
    almost embarrassed, reading the notes (and yes I do know how to hit next 
    unseen and very often do).

    CQ

>                <<< Note 525.313 by LYRIC::QUIRIY "Christine" >>>


	 I guess, Christine, I can understand your discomfort.  But
	 I really don't think anyone in here is trying to condemn
	 Nancy for her actions, but rather to discuss alternatives
	 that could help her to get thru these problems and the
	 discomfort (to say the least) that she felt when he called
	 her.

	 I would hope that anything I wrote about it would be viewed
	 as simply a supportive alternative to help Nancy get thru
	 it....a way for her to deal with it.


	 kath	 

    Kath et alia,
    
    I think that what annoys me about this class of responses is that
    it is (at this point) like informing an acrophobe that the best
    method of escape from <whatever> is to open the window, climb out,
    swing over to the fire escape, and "just climb down".
    
    							Ann B.

	 RE: last few

	 Fine....I'll just shut up.......I thought I could give Nancy
	 some advice because I HAVE BEEN THERE....that my advice is
	 "wrong" and "bad" and "awful" and above all, "impossible."

	 

	 Sometimes you HAVE to "just DO IT".  Sometimes its a matter
	 of having to do something that is going to hurt you REALLY
	 REALLY bad, but you've got to do it if you want the hurt to
	 be less later on.

	 Sometimes we don't always like to hear controversial things,
	 but that doesn't make them "wrong" or "bad."  Sometimes we
	 have to do things we don't like to do, but that doesn't make
	 them "awful."

	 Sometimes if we'd maybe FACE our pain instead of putting it
	 off, even though it hurts like HELL, we might just gain
	 something from it.


         So, let's just sit here and give Kudos to Nancy for hanging
         up on him because he's worse than a jerk, and not face the
         reality that PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS, Nancy might have an 
	 opportunity to help herself out of some of her pain.

	 Yea, let's just not face it because it's too distasteful and
	 because it's a hard things to do, and because it would mean
	 going against everything we're geared to doing, and just
	 because it's "easier" to just ignore it.

	 Yea, we're not strong enough to face something that might
	 help us like that.........yea, we'd better not go outside
	 with someone there to guide us, if we're scared of the
	 outside (forgot the -phobia).....let's just sit inside and
	 rot.


	 

	 RE: Nancy

	 I'd send you mail, but I can't find your node name.



	 Sorry.


	 k
	 

>Caint git there from heah
and
>    I think that what annoys me about this class of responses

 Fortunately, the advice wasn't meant for you. :-)

 The Doctah

    There's an interesting discussion going on in our sister file. 
    Here's the basenote that started it.
    
    						=maggie
    
    
          <<< TRUCKS::DISK$USER72:[NOTES$LIBRARY]EURO_WOMAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< Euro_Woman >-
================================================================================
Note 180.0                       the undefended                        6 replies
CHEFS::BUXTON                                        24 lines   5-FEB-1990 13:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I read an article in the Sunday Torygraph where it was alleged that
    two major law firms were refusing to defend men accused of rape.
    
    The article suggested that some of their major clients were connected
    with womens groups and that one group had made the statement that
    they: Only employ women solicitors.
          Will not use a solicitor who has been associated with a rape
          defence.                  
          Will not use a law firm where any of the partners has defended
          an alleged rapist.        
                                    
    The article went on to say that the specific womens group held that
    the acussed person was _always_ considered to be guilty and by
    defending that person the defence always tried to besmirch the
    character of the complainant.
    
    Whilst I can understand the attitude taken by the womens groups;
    although I may not agree with it, I can't understand how the major
    law firms can be so blatently mercenary in bowing to such pressure.
    
    What do the panel think?
    
    Bucko...
    

>    The article suggested that some of their major clients were connected
>    with womens groups and that one group had made the statement that
>    they: [...]
>          Will not use a law firm where any of the partners has defended
>          an alleged rapist.        
 
How would these women's groups have it, that no law firm would defend someone
charged with rape?  I don't understand - anyone *accused* a rape doesn't
deserve the service of a lawyer?  Can you say "assumed guilty"?

D!

 If the law firms had any character, they'd continue to do what they have
been sworn to do, and allow the women's groups to do whatever they want.
If that means that none of the top law firms qualify for their business, so
be it.

 I consider the actions of the women's groups, if accurately represented, to be
deplorable. I consider the actions of the law firms that cater to them to be
even more so.

 The Doctah

    A fine example of sacrificing principle to issue.

    I gather, Mark and Dana, that you have no such objections to the
    techniques law firms use in defending men accused of rape?
    
    						Ann B.

    Bingo.  That's the first thing that went through my head (and back out
    again).  Some of the approaches used by lawyers is, IMHO, indefensible.
    Refusing to do business with law firms which use those types of
    repugnant tactics is probably a reasonable thing to do.  Boycotting law
    firms just because they defend alledged (sp?) rapists is going too far.

>    I gather, Mark and Dana, that you have no such objections to the
>    techniques law firms use in defending men accused of rape?

 You gather incorrectly, at least from my perspective. 

 The Doctah

    No, I disapprove of a legal firm being told who it may
    and may not serve. For better or worse, all those
    accused are entitled to a legal representation. All
    lawyers are comitted by law and profession to defend 
    their clients. To punish a lawyer for doing his job
    is like punishing a doctor for doing *his*, when the
    patient is someone of whom you disapprove.
    
    As for the tactics of defense lawyers, I think they are
    sometimes reprehensible. However, a lawyer *must* do
    his damndest for his client.
    
    Dana

    Somebody has  to  defend  the  lawyers.  The  lawyers have a legal
    obligation  to defend thier client as effectively as possible, and
    a  moral  obligation  to  provide  defense  to anyone accused of a
    crime.  This  means  that lawyers have a legal obligation to smear
    the  victim as long as that tactic is effective. The courts have a
    moral  obligation to ensure that such unacceptable tactics are not
    effective.

    This must  be  handled by the courts, as asking individual lawyers
    to   not   use  such  tactics  leaves  them  open  to  charges  of
    malpractice.  This  is  a  classic  argument  for  regulation in a
    free-market system.

--David

    I am so pleased to see such fine sentiments coming from people
    willing to work for a company which refuses to do business in
    South Africa.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    if lawyers can use the 'tactic' of smearing the victim, why can't
    the 'tactic' of boycott be used against the lawyers?
    

    The problem is not lawyers that defend "alleged" rapists, it is the
    tactic of smearing the victim.  This so called boycott is not going to
    change the fact that "alleged" rapists are innocent until proven guilty
    and have the right to the lawyer.  A better approach would be to
    support law firms who's lawyers do not make the victim into the guilty
    party.
    
    Suzanne

    "Smearing" is not technically correct. What they are doing is
    attempting to divest the opponent of her 'mantle of innocence',
    the legal presumption that one is completely innocent of any 
    wrongdoing in the matter. The same technique is used when
    an armed citizen shoots a mugger or other assailant. 
    "Why were you in that neighborhood carrying a gun ? Were
    you *looking* for a chance to use your deadly power ?
    Were you *looking* for a fight ?" 
    
    This is harsh, but the lawyer is doing his job - looking for
    *anything* that may get his client off. 
    
    Some lawyers are extremely crude in their attempts to do so.
    When this crudeness is deliberate, the judge should put a
    stop to it. 
    
    Dana
    
    PS I don't *like* this, but that's how the system works.
       And if you expect to prevail in a court of law, you
       should take care to maintain your 'mantle of innocence'.
       I know this is the old ' avoid looking like xxxx ' routine,
       and it sucks, but it is a fact of life. Any ideas on how to
       change it ? 
    

SP>A better approach would be to
SP>    support law firms who's lawyers do not make the victim into the guilty
SP>    party.

 Yes. Much better.

DW>The courts have a
DW>    moral  obligation to ensure that such unacceptable tactics are not
DW>    effective.

 I think it is the fault of judges for not ruling such things inadmissable.

DW>This  is  a  classic  argument  for  regulation in a free-market system.

 No, it isn't, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

 The Doctah

    re: .332
    
    >>"Smearing" is not technically correct. What they are doing is
    >>attempting to divest the opponent of her 'mantle of innocence',
    >>the legal presumption that one is completely innocent of any 
    >>wrongdoing in the matter. The same technique is used when
    >>an armed citizen shoots a mugger or other assailant. 
    >>"Why were you in that neighborhood carrying a gun ? Were
    >>you *looking* for a chance to use your deadly power ?
    >>Were you *looking* for a fight ?" 
    
    So in our charming legal system, it is perfectly o.k. to presume a
    woman is guilty (as in not innocent) because she was walking home from
    the corner convenience store at night, or parking her car in a parking
    garage so she could go out to some meeting or visit with friends, etc.,
    etc.  I don't see any correlation between a woman who is raped (and is
    unarmed) and a person who is wandering around caryying a gun and ends
    up shooting someone.  Besides, this rationale supports the notion that
    women shouldn't be out, at night/without a "protector" and puts the
    blame on the woman in the guise of what was *she* doing out on the 
    street at night.  Beyong that, the questioning is about how many
    times she's had sex and with whom, especially if it is sex outside the 
    sanctimony of marriage (i.e. sex with a man who doesn't
    legally own her as *his* wife/property).  The questioning is about
    trying to convince the jury that *she* asked for it, that *she* enjoyed
    it and that the accused rapist is just some innocent victim of mistaken
    identity or mistaken intentions.
    
    The net/net is that the tactic *is* smearing and it is dehumanizing and
    degrading for the woman (who ends up being on trial rather than the
    rapist) and the legal system, the lawyers and the judges engage in,
    support and condone this vile behavior.  The rationale that you
    present, Dana, just doesn't wash.  
    
    Laura                            

>    So in our charming legal system, it is perfectly o.k. to presume a
>    woman is guilty (as in not innocent) because she was walking home from
>    the corner convenience store at night, or parking her car in a parking
>    garage so she could go out to some meeting or visit with friends, etc.,
>    etc.

 That's not what he said. He said the defense lawyer will typically try to
establish that the victim is not completely innocent in the course of ANY
criminal trial INCLUDING rape.

>I don't see any correlation between a woman who is raped (and is
>    unarmed) and a person who is wandering around caryying a gun and ends
>    up shooting someone.

 Do you see it now?

>Besides, this rationale supports the notion that
>    women shouldn't be out, at night/without a "protector" and puts the
>    blame on the woman in the guise of what was *she* doing out on the 
>    street at night.

 Sort of. It supports the notion that it sucks to be a victim of any crime;
not only do you get to be a victim of the perpetrator, you also get to be a
victim of the judicial system. But our system is optimized to prevent innocent
people from being convicted.

>Beyong that, the questioning is about how many
>    times she's had sex and with whom, especially if it is sex outside the 
>    sanctimony of marriage (i.e. sex with a man who doesn't
>    legally own her as *his* wife/property).

 That happens to be a tactic often used in rape cases. Why? The prosecutor has
to prove two things: sexual congress occurred, and it was not voluntary. When
a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to prove that sexual congress occurred,
the only "regular" route left for the defense is to make it unclear that
the act was involuntary. Technical avenues often remain open.

 In my opinion, the whole line of questioning of "how often do you have sex?" 
etc is usually irrelevant and should not be admissable. Unfortunately, sometimes
a woman will agree to have sex, realize she didn't like it/want it, and then
feel she never gave her consent. So some degree of latitude must be granted
to defense lawyers to gget to the bottom of the situation. But I don't think
they should be given carte blanche in asking (and subsequently withdrawing)
irrelevant personal questions.

>the tactic *is* smearing and it is dehumanizing and degrading for the woman

 Yes.

>The rationale that you present, Dana, just doesn't wash.  

 It is consistent. It does wash. It isn't pretty. It isn't nice. It isn't
easy to accept.

 The Doctah

Re: 525.334 (Laura)

�         I don't see any correlation between a woman who is raped (and is
�    unarmed) and a person who is wandering around caryying a gun and ends
�    up shooting someone.  Besides, this rationale supports the notion that
�    women shouldn't be out, at night/without a "protector" and puts the
�    blame on the woman in the guise of what was *she* doing out on the 
�    street at night.

	huh?  Dana wasn't making any correlation between the people, he
was making a correlation between the way the crimes are prosecuted.  I don't
know where you got "notion that women shouldn't be out, at night/without 
a 'protector'" from what Dana was saying either.

	The fundamental tactics of defense don't seem to vary much from
crime to crime.  It's what is usable/(is used) as ammunition to try to 
discredit the witness(es) that makes the rape defense so distasteful.
Also, in many cases, the victim is the only witness.  It sucks, but what
would you propose as an alternative?

	Remember, the rules that protect "worthless scum" also protect you
should you find yourself on the other side, rightly, or falsely accused.

					--D

    So what we're saying here is that the only way to change this is to
    make what is OK for victim smearing different?

    I don't agree with boycotting firms just because they defend alleged
    rapists.

    I do think that having to prove I'm practically a virgin before it's
    not OK to rape me a direct message saying that I'm nothing but
    property. If I've ever had sex I'm now a suspect. "If she did IT
    once she'll probably want IT from any man" therefore it can't be
    rape. What a bunch of *BS* from the SYSTEM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO
    PROTECT ME! Because I'm a woman I'm guilty by default and any trial
    is only to prove whether I'm innocent not whether the man was
    guilty. I wish men got raped by men as often as women did. Maybe
    things would be different. YES, this does make me bitter about how
    women are treated in our society. liesl

    Thank you liesl!  Very well said.  The problem with victim smearing
    isn't that it is used to defend alleged rapists, but to prosecute 
    victims when they are particularly vulnerable.  I think it's wrong 
    to pre-prosecute alleged rapists by denying them defense, but I also
    think the current system, in humiliating women, *encourages* rape.

    If you disagree with that statement, reread Nancy Bittle's reply
    about what to do if you are raped.  Why should the decision to
    report it have anything to do with how your background will stand
    up to scrutiny??  

    Smearing a rape victim's reputation should not be allowed.  Period!
    It shouldn't even be an *option* for a law firm - on legal as well
    as ethical grounds.  When was the last time you heard of an alleged
    child abuser's lawyer arguing that the child was "asking for it" by
    misbehaving?  Or a bank robber being defended with the argument that
    the bank was making a good profit and didn't need the extra money?

	Sharon

>    It shouldn't even be an *option* for a law firm - on legal as well
>    as ethical grounds.

 EXACTLY!!!! Thanks, Sharon, that hits the nail on the head.

>I wish men got raped by men as often as women did. Maybe
>    things would be different.

 I can't help but feel you're right about this. And that is pretty indicative 
of how far we still have to go to acheive anything even remotely resembling
equality. 

 The Doctah

    I think there are now at least some states that allow questioning of
    the victim's sexual background only as it pertains to the alleged
    rapist.  This protects both people.  The victim doesn't get smeared and
    the alleged rapist gets to bring out information that may help
    exonerate him.
    
    Asking a rape victim about her past sexual experiences is the same as
    asking a mugging victim whether s/he ever willingly gave money to
    _______.  It makes no sense and has no relevance except as a tactic to
    intimdate the victim into dropping their charges and convince a
    narrow-minded judgemental jurist that the victim has had sex outside the
    holy bonds on matrimony and is, therefore, a slut who willingly has sex
    with any slimeball who asks.
       

	re: .320 extract from Euro_Woman "the undefended"

	Not defending accused rapists is, of course, wrong, but 
	I was quite psyched to read .320, because this means
	that more people are becoming aware of the unfair, slimeball
	sexist tactics used by defense lawyers in rape trials.

	In the book "Men on Rape" that was referenced in topic 958,
	a lawyer who had (successfully) defended several accused
	rapists said something like "I would try to play up to the
	sexist attitudes of the jurors to help get my client off,
	whereas I think taking advantage of racist attitudes is wrong."

	He said he couldn't believe the jury acquitted one of his 
	clients that was obviously guilty.

	re: .340 (Goodhue)

	>   I think there are now at least some states that allow questioning of
	>   the victim's sexual background only as it pertains to the alleged
	>   rapist.  

	Yes, some states have these laws.  They are called "Rape Shield Laws".  

        >   -< Humiliate the victim 'til she drops the charges. >-

	And the FBI wonders why rape is the most underreported felony...
	they wonder why, according to their stats, that the chances of
	a rapist getting caught and convicted are 1 in 605...

							nancy b.

re.340,.341

While asking questions of the victim only as they might pertain to her 
relationship with the alleged rapist is certainly a step in the right direction,
this restriction wouldn't/didn't 'shield' me from character assasination.

Somehow, the fact that 18 months previously I had lived with the man who ripped
off one of my fingernails, choked me, caused a concussion and a torn trapezius
muscle, not to mention some technicolour contusions made me fair game and my
experience 'not rape' ... well not reeeaaally rape.

Still, half a shield is better than none and I'm glad that these laws are
present where they are.

  Ann

A previous member of the community is requesting information for a friend.
Notes policy is not to share any notes outside a notesfile without checking
with an author. Maybe some of the authors will be willing to send their notes,
or information and help.
	Mez

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

From:	DECPA::"[email protected]"  1-MAR-1990 09:39:20.94
To:	ultra::zurko 
CC:	
Subj:	Womannotes... 

Hi Mary Ellen,
 
I am writing you from the University of Michigan.  I worked at DEC as a
temporary from Sep '87-Apr '88, and again in the summer of 1989.  I
participated in =wn= as SHIRE::DICKER.
 
I am writing because one of my girlfriend's closest friends was recently
raped.  I remember seeing a lot of items related to that topic in =wn=.
In particular, there was an item entered by a rape survivor describing
what people close to her could do to help.  I was hoping that you could enter
an item in the conference for her, so that participants could send her that
iteand perhaps other stuff.
 
Her net address is DECWRL::"[email protected]", and mine is
DECWRL::"[email protected]".  I sent a message to Bonnie
Reinke recently, but either she is on vacation or my message failed to
get through, so now I'm writing you.  Do you think this would be OK?
 
Thanks,
Keith C. Dicker
 
======= Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) =======
Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA04544; Thu, 1 Mar 90 06:36:14 -0800
Received: from ubmts.cc.umich.edu by umich.edu (5.61/1123-1.0)
	id AA26169; Thu, 1 Mar 90 09:34:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 09:34:38 EST
From: [email protected]
To: ultra::zurko
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Womannotes...

    
    	Just to be sure:
    
    	Is the address he's giving that of the rape victim's girlfriend
    	or the rape victim?
    
    	Also, I thought DECWRL:: was permanently down, and DEPCA::
    	took its place...  
    						nancy b.
    

    that's DECPA::

DECWRL is alive...

1 >ruptime
decwrl.dec.com       up 10+19:51,     3 users,  load 103.45, 104.26, 102.90
2 >

For those of you who don't speak unix, that means it's been up for 10 days,
19 hours, and 51 minutes since its last reboot. (that line also shows that there
are over 100 processes on the "ready" queue, but all that means is that it's
completely overloaded, which you already knew if you used it at all...)

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that DECPA is the preferred internal mail gateway, but
both addresses SHOULD work.

	-- Charles

	re: .343 (Mez)

	The 2 replies below are the ones I"ll be sending Keith.

								nancy b.



           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 812.13            Problems growing out of an assualt               13 of 23
SYSENG::BITTLE "healing from the inside out"         94 lines   4-OCT-1989 18:27
                      -< Help her cope, help her survive >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          re: .0 (anonymous basenoter)

          > I have a good friend who has done daycare for me for 9 or more
          > years.(multiple kids). She has been assulted in her home by a
          > stranger, twice.

          Now she must learn how to cope with the consequences of sexual
          violence.  How long and to what extent her life is affected by
          the assault will result from a complex interaction between the
          assault(s) itself, whether the perpetrator is caught and con-
          victed, her responses and coping options, and the reactions and
          amount of support she receives from others, especially those she
          loves and respects.

          As a good friend who's known her for a long time, you could be
          instrumental in starting her on the road to recovery.

          You have already begun to do so in many ways you described in .0.
          Have compassion for yourself, as well, since anyone close to a
          woman who has to deal with the aftermath of rape will also have a
          difficult time.

          Now is the time for you to think clearly.  Do not let your anger
          of the situation get out of control.  At this point in time, she
          needs to be comforted, soothed, reassured, and given lots of sup-
          port.  She does _not_ need rage, tears, or some profound social,
          political, or economic explanation (though that may be useful
          _later_).  Don't try to force her to talk about it for her own
          good.  If she's somehow indicating the need to discuss it, ap-
          proach the subject in a manner on which she can either expound or
          abandon while saving face.  After experiencing a total loss of
          control during the rape(s), she needs to taste what it is like to
          be in control again.  This could be perceived from something as
          trivial as having her decide where to go out to eat and having
          her drive there.  Although she needs much support, avoid over-as-
          sisting her to the point that she could feel helpless or not in
          control of her life.

          Her most immediate need is one of safety.  She must be feeling an
          immense amount of terror at the fact that the same man was able
          to forcibly rape her twice at knifepoint and he is free to do so
          again.  She needs someone as a companion and protector for her
          short term mental and physical well-being.  She needs to decide
          on a means of protecting herself in which she's confident she
          could successfully utilize, given her first-hand knowledge of the
          reality of a physical confrontation between man and woman.  En-
          courage her to research the success rates of the various methods
          of self-defense, so that her decision is based more on facts than
          emotion.

          I hope she was given proper medical attention...  She should have
          been literally pumped full of antibiotics to prevent contraction
          of a STD, she perhaps should have been given something to prevent
          pregnancy, and she should be aware that immediately beginning AZT
          treatment could create an unhealthy environment for the AIDS
          virus if the rapist is a carrier.  Was it possible to obtain med-
          ical corroboration of the rape?  If not, were notes made of any
          physical injuries sustained during the attack?  I am not familiar
          with Mass laws regarding rape, but some states *require* physical
          corroboration or an eyewitness to the rape.

          Some negative side effects of her rape could be:

          o  distrust of men                 o affected attitude to sex
          o  flashbacks                      o dreams/nightmares
          o  cues which remind her of rape   o vulnerability/fear
          o  insecurity                      o  breakdown linked to assault
          o  negative effect on education    o  losing custody of children
          o  fear of challenging men         o  suicide attempt
          o  loss of security and safety     o  expecting coercive sex
          o  linking sex to being used       o  using sex as revenge
          o  loss of self-respect            o  self-blame
          o  confusion between love/sex/affection
          o  not being able to cope with images of violence
          o  more vulnerable to later abuse
          o  attempts to bury the memory and suppress the feelings it
             evokes;  denial
          o  difficulty in relaxing during sex
          o  having sex trigger memories of the rape
          o  becoming promiscuous or frigid/celibate (and I guess I'm using
             the male-defined connotations of 'frigid' and 'promiscuous')

          Some positive side effects of her rape could be:

          o  independent/stronger            o feminist attitudes
          o  becoming closer to women             
          o  knowledge that she has the right to control her own body
          o  aware of risks for herself and her daughters
          o  determined to avoid coercive sex


          Good luck.  She sounds lucky to have you as a friend.

                                                            nancy b.




Note 525.36   Side Effects of Rape: Discussion & Responses to 99.*     36 of 344
SYSENG::BITTLE "Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer,LSEE" 90 lines  14-JUN-1989 04:29
                     -< Men helping women victims of rape >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: 525.34 (One of Dick Wagman's questions in response to 99.29)

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| And what can men do as friends/lovers/spouses/relatives to help support|
| women who have been victimized?                                        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Men as friends
--------------
My closest friend at the time of The Incident happened to be male.  His
reaction was to simply spend as much time with me as possible.  He studied
with me, ate with me, slept (literally) with me, held me when I cried or
woke up from a nightmare hitting him.  When he couldn't be with me, he made
sure someone else was.  He was an excellent listener, never asking too many
direct questions but always subtly challenging any absurd statement I made
with a passive maybe-it's-not-like-that observation.  Later, he told me he
was worried I would do something to harm myself.  He probably saved my
life.

Three years later, I am a transplant in a different place with different
and relatively new men friends.  Till most recently, none of my men friends
even knew.  The one that now does know asked me some very tough questions
about my feelings that I could not answer logically...which was slightly
startling to me.  But I am tough now, and can handle any question without
being hurt.  So maybe I am ready to start thinking about what happened so I
can eventually sleep normally.

Timing is important.  One year ago I would not have considered talking to
any male friend about this.  Don't press the issue if she is not somehow
indicating a need to talk about it.   If she does seem to need to talk, put
on a listening cap.  Reword your advice in the form of a question, because
she might be more inclined to accept conclusions she has reasoned out in
her mind instead of ones that you have thought through in yours.


Men as Lovers
-------------
First thought that comes to mind:  Too bad they can't be mind readers.

Knowing this isn't possible, and knowing men justifiably get tired of
either having to be mind readers or suddenly being abandoned, rejected, and
left in a state of confusion as to what they did wrong, I still find it
tough to discuss things I would be averse to doing because of The Incident.

Maybe a discussion could take place outside of the bedroom, but while
sharing an intimate moment together.  Ask her specific questions like
"Would it bother you if I did ....", so that the only thing she'll have to
say is either yes or no.  And in order to get the most honest response,
phrase your question so that there is no hint as to whether this is
something you really want to do or not.

When in bed, be aware of a quick mood change or a sudden resistance when
there was none before that might indicate something is feeling wrong.  Be
cautious with expressing sexual assertiveness, especially if it is of a
nature you have never expressed before.

Of course, when making love to someone who's most recent sexual experience
was a violent one, it is extremely important to be sincerely gentle and
take things very slowly.  I've read that men who make love to a woman the
first time after her rape find it quite exciting, as though they were
making love to a virgin.


Men as Relatives
----------------

I think men who are relatives can potentially be the most helpful of all,
dependent on a close relationship existing before the rape occurred.  This
especially applies to brothers.  You grew up with her and could know better
than any other person how she is likely to react to this experience.
Strong guidance might be what is needed immediately following the incident.

I know that if my brother had been around he would've been the first person
I would have called.  He would've known exactly what to do and say.  My
father, on the other hand, is really almost 2 generations before me (my mom
and dad were about 42 when they had me).  I am positive I could never talk
to him about this experience in any helpful manner.


Men as Spouses
--------------

I will punt on this one...

I guess a combination of Men as Friends and Men as Lovers from above ... if
spouse = friend + lover ...


Hope this helps.
                                                       nancy b.

    	Understanding rape took a giant step backward last Friday when
    10 men and 2 women jurors found the "Dirty Dancing" foursome innocent
    of rape, but guilty of sexual assault.
    
    	What this decision said to me, is that women who dance nude
    in a nightclub, walk provocitivally on a beach in a bikini, or wear
    a halter with erect nipples showing through are 'asking for it'.
    
    	What follows is *my* understanding of the circumstances:
    
    In 1985 an accident left this young woman in a 6 week coma and with
    a slightly (?) damaged brain. She is considered "slightly semi-mentally
    handicapped". (if there is such a thing, how is it measured) She
    and these 4 young men in the heat of July (1987) were together and
    she invited them in to her apartment to watch the video Dirty Dancing.
    (the judge allowed the jury to see the movie to "set the atmosphere")
    The young girl apparently changed into a sleeveless top and shorts
    and danced like the girl in the movie. What followed are piecemeal
    from my memory. 
    
    	The Woman: Claims that that they forced her into have intercourse
    though she protested. That the first man held her down and that
    she tried to struggle but was afraid that they would hurt her so
    she became submissive. 
    
    	The Men: Claim she danced in front of them, invited one into
    the bedroom and then sent out for the other three, one at a time.
    That she enjoyed it and didn't scream or yeall, but talked etc.
    
    	A witness for the defense claims that she was proud, bragged
    etc. about the incident.
    
    	Evidence (tissues-Kleenex) examine shoed that each boy wiped
    himself clean after each episode and deposited the kleenex in the
    trash by the bed. One side's (defense) view this as a crucial link
    that the men were not raping her or they would have destroyed the
    tissue. The prosecution says that they did it as a show of disgust
    as if she were unclean etc.
    	The girl did not report the incident for a few days because
    she claims she was afraid of repercussions/shame etc.
    
    	I guess the question remains: What does it take to get people
    to realize that nobody has any right to touch the body of another
    human being regardless of what they do or how they dress or act.
    
    Example: A woman walks into my office. (Floor to ceiling with a
    door) She sit down and say that she has ripped her nylons. She hikes
    up her skirt and is wearing a red and black lacy garter with crotchless
    lacy panties and black stockings that have a hole in the mid-thigh.
    Does that give the right to throw her on the floor and have intercourse
    because she wanted to show her stockings?????
    
    	I'm so p*ssed off at this I can't see straight. I'm just glad
    that I have a pool so I don't have to worry that some lunk thinks
    because my daughter (14) is wearing a bikini at the beach and is
    being 'suggestive' he can violate the sanctity of her body......
    
    AAAAaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh
    
    Ken

    re: .348
    
     Tidbits about the case as read in the Boston Globe over the last
    several weeks (& the Herald as well).
    
     -The woman was drinking heavily.
    
     -The woman danced seductively with the participants.
    
     -The woman exposed her breasts before leading the first one into her
    bedroom.
    
     -The woman told her friend "I was drinking and you know how I get when
    I'm drinking. They all had their fun with me."
    
     -The woman did not say anything about rape at first. She expressed
    some concern over the possibilities of pregnancy and/or AIDS, at which
    point her mother took her to the hospital then to the police station to
    fill out a report. IE- "rape" was the mother's idea.
    
     From what I have heard about the case, it sounds like a case of
    consensual sex deemed rape after the fact. It sounded like the mother
    reacted very strongly to the daughter's admiddion that she had "done
    it" with four boys and had forced the issue. The fly in the ointment
    here is the woman's diminished mental capacity. I have absolutely no
    idea how affected she is. If she is incapable of making decisions to
    have sex on her own, then the sex would be non-consensual and therefore
    illegal. On the other hand, because she was in a car accident that left
    her impaired, that shouldn't mean that she should be disallowed from
    choosing to have sex necessarily. 
    
     Having not seen the victim, I don't really know how to react to this
    case. If she is able to make rational decisions on her own, then it
    would seem that based on the evidence, no crime has been committed. If
    she is unable to make rational decisions, then I believe indecent
    assault is a proper verdict.
    
     For the record, I personally feel that taking sexual advantage of a
    retarded person to be a rather low thing to do.
    
     The Doctah

re: dirty dancing...

I don't understand that jury's verdict.  Either the woman *did* invite the
men to her bedroom, in which case the men are guilty of *nothing*, or she
*didn't* invite them back, in which case they are guilty of *rape*.  How
did they justify "sexual assault"?  (Nancy said a while back that some states
now eliminate "rape" from the law books, and use...what was it, aggravated
sexual assault (?) instead...so maybe the verdict *was* rape, but the
terminology was different.)

D!

    I've been following this case in the Middlesex News.  I don't know that
    I necessarily think the men raped the woman.  I remember reading
    that an acquaintance described the woman as being "very lonely."
     My impression is that the woman was drunk, lonely, as well as "mentally
    impaired" from the car accident, (whatever *that* means), and that
    she may have really wished that she had a boyfriend who cared about
    her to  make love to her, (maybe someone like Patrick Swayze in
    "Dirty Dancing") and instead she wound up having sex with 4 guys
    whom she later realized didn't give a damn about her, and who would
    most likely never consider dating her, even though they lined up
    to screw her.  I think that it was a sad situation, and I feel sorry
    for the woman.
    
    I also feel that this incident is an example that boys are not taught
    some things about sex, while growing up, that I think they should
    be taught.  I don't think they actually raped the woman, but I don't
    understand *why* these guys (all decent enough looking in newspaper
    photos) would *want* to line up to screw a "mentally impaired" drunk
    woman!!!  I cannot imagine myself and my 3 closest female friends
    lining up to screw a "mentally impaired" drunk man!!!  Doesn't anybody
    tell there sons that they don't have to screw every woman who comes
    along and says they can?  If these guys wanted to have sex why didn't
    they just ask someone they liked on a date, and get to know someone
    first, and have sex in private with someone they like, like normal
    people do!!!  Personally, it makes me sick that these guys did this!
     Didn't it occur to them to just go home?  One of my best male friends
    used to tell me, "Just remember most men would screw a snake if
    it had a hole in it!" and I guess maybe he was right.
    
    Also, I think using the movie "Dirty Dancing" as a reason to prove
    she was "asking for it" is ridiculous!  I've seen the movie and
    I think it's very cute and very romantic.  It's a far cry from a
    porno flick! 
    
    Lorna
     

    I don't know the extent of the mental illness, I thought I'd read that
    after the accident and recovery she finished high school and was
    attending college. I think the press was playing upon public sympathy
    with that phrase. Based on the testimony available, I wonder why
    the defendents were found guilty of a lesser charge, it seemed that
    it should have been more binary, either she consented or she didn't.

    Gail

    Re .353, do I think these men will ever be treated the same?
    
    Yes, I do.  I don't think the charges or the trial or the verdict
    will have a negative impact on their lives.  Judging by the majority
    of the replies in here most people think that what they did was
    just fine.  I can only assume that most people in the world in general
    will also think that what they did is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    
    Lorna
    

     I completely disagree, Lorna. The stigma of being convicted of a sex
    crime will likely haunt them the rest of their lives.
    
>    Judging by the majority
>    of the replies in here most people think that what they did was
>    just fine.
    
     If the sex was consentual, do you have a problem with what the "boys"
    did? What about the woman?
    
>I can only assume that most people in the world in general
>    will also think that what they did is perfectly acceptable behavior.
 
      If the sex was consentual, what part of their behavior would you
    consider to be unacceptable?
    
    The Doctah                                                  

    Re .355, Mark, I really don't think that many people are going to
    hold what happened against them since most people seem to think
    that the woman was at fault.  Only time will tell which one of us
    turns out to be right.
    
    I do not think it is right for 4 guys to line up to have sex with
    a "mentally impaired" woman.  They were all aware of her problems.
     I think they took advantage of the fact that she has some type
    of mental problems, her loneliness and her drunkiness.  I think they should
    have realized it was an unsavory situation, and that trouble could
    arise from it.
    
    I think there are very few women who really want to have four men
    line up and fuck them one after the other, Mark.  That type of activity
    may sound like a good time for the average American male, but most
    women want relationships and love, as well as sex.
    
    I think she realized after they went home that none of them gave
    a damn about her and that they were just using her, and I think
    that this hurt and anger are what led her to agree to the rape charges.
     
    I have already said that I don't think that they actually raped
    her.  However, I do feel that the "boys" should have known better
    than to conduct themselves in just a manner.
    
    Lorna
    

    To further clarify, I think that the boys were asking for it (it
    being rape charges), by having sex with a "mentally impaired" woman
    under these conditions.  The boys should have realized that the
    way they were acting could result in their being charged with rape.
    
    Lorna
    

>    Re .355, Mark, I really don't think that many people are going to
>    hold what happened against them since most people seem to think
>    that the woman was at fault.
    
     I don't see the need to assign a "fault" here (unless a crime
    occurred.)
    
>    I do not think it is right for 4 guys to line up to have sex with
>    a "mentally impaired" woman.
    
     Why? Does it depend on the degree of impairment?
    
>However, I do feel that the "boys" should have known better
>    than to conduct themselves in just a manner.
 
     Because they all had sex with her or because she was drunk or because
    she is mentally impaired?
    
     What if she likes it? 
    
     The Doctah         

    Re .358, if she liked it, she wouldn't have charged them with rape,
    would she?
    
    I'm sure you've noticed a difference between what you like when
    you're drunk and what you like when you're sober.
    
    As I said in .357, I just happen to think the boys were asking for
    trouble.  They should have realized that they could get in trouble
    by acting this way.
    
    Lorna
    
    

     If you can believe what was written, the charges never would have been
    brought by the woman herself. It appeared to be the mother's crusade, to
    punish the boys and apparently salvage her daughter's reputation.
    
>    As I said in .357, I just happen to think the boys were asking for
>    trouble.  They should have realized that they could get in trouble
>    by acting this way.
    
     Let me ask you this: do you think if only one boy was present, he
    would have been "asking for trouble" if he had sex with a mentally
    impaired woman? Well, if the woman was not mentally impaired, would the
    4 boys have been "asking for trouble" by having sex with her? I guess
    the bottom line question is what factor accounts for the boys' "asking
    for trouble?"
    
     The Doctah

    They were asking for trouble, in my opinion, because they knew she
    was mentally impaired, they knew she was drunk, I believe they knew
    she was lonely and bored since that seems to have been common knowledge
    amongst people who knew her.  I think they went over there with
    the idea that they could get "a piece of ass" from her.  I don't
  think any of them were interested in having a relationship with her.
     I think it was wrong for them to use her, and take advantage of
    her this way.  I think it is morally wrong for people to have sex
    with people who may not have full use of their faculties.  In our
    society, when people care about each other, it is customary for
    sex to usually consist of one male and one female, as I'm sure you
   have observed yourself, Doctah.  I realize that some people have
    chosen to engage in "group sex" which usually consists of a few
    members of both sexes.  But, I think it is especially wrong for
    four men to take advantage of one mentally impaired female.  I'm
    sure the four of them were physically capable of raping her.  They
    should have realized that what they are doing was a dangerous
    situation.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .361, I realize that I made a comment about sex usually consisting
    of one male and one female.  My apologies to all those who normally
    prefer their sex to consist of two individuals of the same sex.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .362, yes, Mike, I guess it is.
    
    Lorna
    

    Just a minor nit:
    
    These guys have had three or four years to get together and confirm
    stories and notes. She's had the same amount of time to wait to
    be cross examined 4 times about everything that took place.
    
    One very interesting part of the trial was that the second in line
    claimed she said "who next?" when the third in line claimed the second
    in line said "who's next?  
    
    The four will be sentenced next week (?) and each could receive
    up to 5 years hard time for "sexual assault". If 3 cons hold one
    of them down and one con decides he's going to penetrate one of these
    guys anally, and the kid says "go ahead", is this consent?????
    
    C'mon folks!! The girl was mentally impaired. These guys knew it.
    They planned it and it worked to a point. 
    
    Sexual assault is a copout to keep "wholesome" guys like this in
    bad circumstances from doin' a life term. This way they get a felony
    charge and possibly do 1-1/2 years in a med. security pen.
    
    Anybody in this file want to trust any of these guys with a "mentally
    impaired" sister or daughter?? 
    
    Ken   
    
    

    I agree with Lorna.
    
    There is a gigantic difference between one man having sex with a woman
    and 4 men lining up to do so. Add to that the fact that they knew this
    woman had (no pun intended)(well, maybe :-}) a screw or 2 loose, and
    these guys were behaving irresponsibly.
    
    The question is: should young men have to be responsible about sex?
    Should men be viewing sex as a way to "get off" and not as a part
    of caring about someone (who isn't himself).
    
    There are places men can go to "get off". There is  no ambivalence
    about what these places are. There is no doubt about their intention,
    their function, and no need to care about the mental condition of the
    women who work there. Problem is, they cost money. And it'll probably
    cost you more, four at a time.
    
    Somehow, I don't think the analogy between these guys "asking for
    trouble" by their behaviour and women"asking for trouble" by their
    dress  really works. The perceptions surrounding women's dress and
    men's behaviour are so different in this society as to be apples and 
    oranges. 
    
    --DE
    

>I think it is morally wrong for people to have sex
>    with people who may not have full use of their faculties.
    
     That sure would preclude alot of sex from happening.
    
>    But, I think it is especially wrong for
>    four men to take advantage of one mentally impaired female.
    
     Interesting that you chose to make this sex specific.
    
>    I'm  sure the four of them were physically capable of raping her.
    
     That's irrelevant. I am physically capable of killing someone; that's
    no excuse to lock me up.
    
     I guess the bottom line is that I believe that in order to convict
    these boys of rape, the prosecution should have to prove that the sex
    was nonconsentual. That could be done one of two ways- either prove
    that the sex occurred against the woman's will or prove that the woman
    was not capable of making that decision. From the testimony that was
    reported in the papers, it does not appear that the sex occurred
    against the woman's will, so one must assume that the jury found her
    incapable of giving her consent. This act in effect makes it illegal
    for ANYONE to engage in sexual activities with this woman. Which also
    means that the jusy has made it against the law for her to have sex
    with anyone. I find that to be a troubling prospect.
    
     The Doctah

>  I think it is morally wrong for people to have sex
>    with people who may not have full use of their faculties.  

Hmmm...

In other words, if everyone "did the right thing", any person not having
"full use of their faculties" would be unable to have sex, even if he or
she wanted it.

Total sexual isolation is a pretty harsh punishment for not being up to
society's par for "mental faculties".

"mentally disabled" can mean horribly retarded.  But it can also mean
learning disabled, dyslexic, or any number of other disabilities which, while
very unpleasent for the person in question, do not necessarily inhibit
their judgement about when and with whom to have sex.  (I can tick of on
my fingers right now a whole slew of mental disabilities that I don't think
require the person having them to live a life of sexual deprivation.)

I think the mentally disabled have rights too, and should not be treated
like children.  They should be allowed to make decisions for themselves as
much as they are able.

D!

    re .367, .368, if this woman should meet a man who loves her just
    the way she is, "mentally impaired" and all, and he is truly interested
    in having a relationship with her, then I don't think there is anything
    wrong in the two of them having sex - as an expression of their
    mutual love/like :-).  What I think is wrong, is that these four
    local boys knew of her weakness, and decided to take advantage of
    it just to get off.  
    
    Lorna
    

>What I think is wrong, is that these four
>    local boys knew of her weakness, and decided to take advantage of
>    it just to get off.    
    
     The possibility that she could have wanted to do it doesn't seem to
    enter into the equation, does it? 
    
    The Doctah

    Re .370, Not to me it doesn't, because I don't think she did want
    it.
    
    She have wanted one of the boys to fall in love with her, and want
    to have a relationship with her, but I don't think she wanted all
    four of them to fuck her and go home and leave her there like a
    piece of used toilet paper.  I don't think there are very many women
    who want to be screwed by 4 men who don't give a shit about them.
    
    Lorna
    

    Doc:
    
    I know a LOT of women. None of them have ever had, nor have now, any
    desire to have sex like THAT. It's exactly the kind of stuff that's
    portrayed in pornographic films/stories for *men*. 
    
    Now, I grant you, all the women I know have no mental impairments. But
    somehow, having that impairment makes it all the more important that
    that type of sex, those types of male fantasies, aren't played out
    using such a person. 
    
    I'll grant you she probably wanted some kind of warmth and loving. I'll
    grant you she probably figured she'd have to have sex with a man to get
    the warmth and loving. But I doubt the experience she had was pleasant.
    And I still say those men (someone said boys?) were irresponsible. 
    
    --DE
    

Hey, wait a minute there a second.

There are women who sometimes want to have sex, just sex, without love, caring,
relationships, etc, entering into the picture.  Trust me on this, I have it
on very good authority. ;^)  Some women even want it with more than one man
(I would imagine.)

It seems to me that if a woman who is (supposedly) fully mentally capable
wants such a thing, that it is at least possible that a woman who happens
to have some sort of mental disability might want it too.

While I will admit that *in* *this* *case* it doesn't sound all that likely
that the scenario as it occured was exactly what this woman had in mind, I
strongly resent all these implications that "all women want love, sex, etc,
never just sex";  I find even more offensive the implication that having
a mental impairment means that one can't want sex or enjoy sex like other
people.

I think you folks are making an *awful* lot of assumptions by saying that
since this woman had a disability, that she can't have been looking for a 
gang-bang.

D!

(Also, if you are lonely and desperate, and what you really want is love and
affection and caring, but you can't get it, sometimes one night of sex is
better than being all alone.  Is it morally wrong to give someone that, even
if you know that *ideally* they would have you fall in love with them?)

    The only women I have seen who "want a gang bang" are in pornographic
    movies. We'll never know from the folks here, but I'd would be VERY
    surprised if 1% of women polled are truly interested in a "gang bang".
    
    "Just sex" is different than a "gang bang". And I don't think anyone
    denied that "just sex" is a viable option for folks. How much this
    *particular|* person would be able to weigh "just sex" and "making
    love" and "being loved" is unknown to this assemblage.
    
    Even "more than one man" isn't *FOUR*. 
    
    I give up. Here I go again, getting involved in this stuff when all
    we have are news accounts of the situation. Reliable sources, fer sure.
    ;-|
    
    --DE
    
    

    Re .373, D! I've been in the situation where I've allowed one night
    of sex with someone who didn't give a shit about me to help get
    rid of loneliness.  In retrospect it always seemed worse than having
    just read a good book instead.
    
    Besides, one night of sex with a friend who likes a person, is
    different than having 4 guys line up to screw you and then yell
    next.
    
    I said *most* women don't want that, and I don't think most women
    do want that.  I realize there is a small minority that that wouldn't
    mind having sex with a bunch of men at once, but I'd hardly consider
    it one of the major dreams of most women.  
    
    I think if this particular woman had really enjoyed exactly what
    happened she would have kept the incident to herself, and not told
    her mother.  I think she felt angry and betrayed by the guys because
    she realized they didn't care about her.  Let's face it how many
    guys would line up to screw a woman they really cared about?  (I
    don't think many.  That's not the kind of thing men want to have
    happen to *their* wife, or SO, or fiancee, or sister.)
    
    Lorna
    

	I have to support D! to some extent... (since she once told me she
wished more people would write when they did)


	Just because *you* or *your friends* {don't do/wouldn't do/can't
conceive of doing} something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and there aren't
people who enjoy it.  I'm probably somewhere very middle of the road in what
I myself participate in, but I sure know people at the extremes.

	I also agree that arguing about it using hearsay evidence from the
newspaper is pretty much an exercise in futility.  We can color all the
"factoids" any way we please to suit our position, but I doubt we're any
closer to the truth.

						--D (no bang...)

>    Re .373, D! I've been in the situation where I've allowed one night
>    of sex with someone who didn't give a shit about me to help get
>    rid of loneliness.  In retrospect it always seemed worse than having
>    just read a good book instead.
 
But, Lorna, we are talking "morally wrong" here! (Your words.)  You made
the decision to take a night of sex in lieu of a life of love.  Your decision.
Your mistake.  Was it "morally wrong" for the man you slept with to 
abide by your decision?

>    Besides, one night of sex with a friend who likes a person, is
>    different than having 4 guys line up to screw you and then yell
>    next.
 
Of course it is different.  That isn't the issue.  I didn't say she *did*
like it, I said that you are de facto eliminating the possibility that
she could, and basing it on the fact that she is disabled, and I
say that is a value-loaded judgement.
 
>    mind having sex with a bunch of men at once, but I'd hardly consider
>    it one of the major dreams of most women.  
 
Irrelevent.  If *one* woman wants it, somewhere, would it be morally
wrong for men to do it to her?  And if she *says* she wants it (or agrees
to it) how are they to know she doesn't mean it (or will regret it in
the morning.)  You are saying that these four men/boys/whatever had
the moral responsibility to assume that *this* woman didn't want a gang-
bang based solely on the fact that 1) she was "mentally impaired" (does
anyone know to what extent "impaired" means???) and 2) most women don't
want gang-bangs.
 
>    I think if this particular woman had really enjoyed exactly what
>    happened she would have kept the incident to herself, and not told
>    her mother.  

What if she consented, but still didn't enjoy it?  Lorna, in the first
paragraph, you said you had had sex you didn't enjoy.  Maybe you would
complain about not enjoying it to your Mom (doesn't sound likely ;-) or
friends or whatever.

On the other hand, what if you had such a great time, that you wanted to
*shout* about it?  (I didn't say likely, but pointing out that you are
basing your moral judgements on a lot of unwarrented assumptions.)

>I think she felt angry and betrayed by the guys because
>    she realized they didn't care about her.  

Quite possibly. But I don't think it is morally wrong to have sex with
someone you don't care about it, if they want it.

>Let's face it how many
>    guys would line up to screw a woman they really cared about? 

Not many.  I never argued that they cared about her.

I think you should totally drop the business of "...because she was impaired"
as a defense of your moral judgements, because unless we *know* she was
impaired to the level where she can't make rational decisions (most impairments
are not that radical), it is simply prejudice against the mentally
handicapped to say that believing what they say and following through on
it is immoral.

Do you still consider it immoral if you ignore the fact that she was
mentally impaired?

D!

(Based on my [admitedly minimal] knowledge about psych and neurological
damage, it seems that if her disability were caused by an accident that
it was more likely to causes difficulties like short-term memory problems,
vision processing problems, amnesia, etc than to cause problems with 
ability to make rational decisions.)

This case is unfamiliar to me (how did I miss it before?), but I want to
comment on the question of the verdict of sexual assault instead of rape, from
the perspective of having had this explained to me when I was a juror in
New Hampshire several years ago.  (My comments may not be applicable to other
states.)

As I understand it, there is not usually a legal charge called "rape".  In
New Hampshire, it would be "felonious sexual assult", which could also
have the term "aggravated" attached to it (I think this means if some sort
of physical violence or threat with a weapon was involved).  There are,
however, various "degrees" of the crime, and a jury is free to find the
defendant(s) guilty of any of the "lesser included crimes" as they decide
is appropriate.  Juries will often use "extenuating circumstances", such as
in this case, the apparent serious question of whether or not the acts
were concensual, and the resulting verdict may not make a lot of sense
when taken out of this context.

For example, when I was a juror, I had a case of a man who had attacked
a teen-ager with a knife and had slashed his nose.  He was charged with,
if I recall, "second degree assault", a felony.  However, there were many
extenuating circumstances, such as the teen-ager being part of a group of
kids who had threatened the man verbally and physically, and that the teen-ager
had a stick as a weapon, that caused us to find the man guilty of "reckless
conduct", a misdemeanor.  Taken out of context, that verdict seems ridiculous,
but the judge later agreed with us that it was the most appropriate for the
circumstances.

Jurors have to answer to no one for their verdicts.  Theoretically, they are
not supposed to know what kinds of punishments go with what verdicts, though
they usually have a good idea.  Without having been in the courtroom to
hear and see all the evidence for myself, I would not conclude that a
verdict of some degree of sexual assault was not in fact appropriate.  It is
still a serious crime with possibly severe penalties.  It would be interesting
to see what the penalties are for this case.

				Steve

    In relation to what Steve said: it's situations like this that show the
    reason behind our jury system. There is no way any law can be right for
    every possible variation of a crime. We may argue over the affect of
    society's views on a jury's decision but it seems hard to argue
    against the need to temper laws with knowledge of the circumstances.

    On a purely personal note: I would hope that the men in my life would
    be of the sort who wouldn't have participated in this event. liesl

>>(Based on my [admitedly minimal] knowledge about psych and neurological
>>damage, it seems that if her disability were caused by an accident that
>>it was more likely to causes difficulties like short-term memory problems,
>>vision processing problems, amnesia, etc than to cause problems with 
>>ability to make rational decisions.)

I went to school with and worked with a woman who fractured her skull
& suffered a good bit of brain damage.  This included vision problems, 
complete and apparently irreparable loss of memory prior to the accident,
and slight retardation.  During her reeducation  (which was still going 
on last time I saw her) she was definitely unable to make rational,
informed decisions.  She was eventually enrolled in a live-in program 
at Penn State to help people who suffered complete memory loss.  One 
of the problems they had was that although the people in the program 
were non-compus-mentis (sp?), they still had sexual urges. 

Testing understanding here. We're trying to judge whether these four "boys" are
or are not guilty of rape by what noters have written about what newspapers have
written about what was said in a courtroom about actions that took place four
years ago?

Huh. Some people will use any excuse for an argument. Like me.

They're obviously guilty. They deserve chemical castration. Anyone who disagrees
is a foo-foo head.

	-- Charles

    Re .377, D!, when did I ever say I had accepted "a night of sex
    in lieu of a life of love"?????  What a crazy thing to say.  I
    certainly don't feel that accepting "a night of sex" precludes anyone
    from having a "life of love."  ?????   I don't understand you and
    you don't understand me.  I think we are very different.
    
    Re .379, Liesl, I agree!  I hope no men who are part of my life
    would ever participate in a situation like that, too!  (but sadly
    I have my doubts)
    
    Lorna
    

	re .56
>        I think there are very few women who really want to have four men
>    line up and fuck them one after the other,

    	Thanks for saying that Lorna.  I couldn't agree with you more.
    	It always gets me in these situations that it doesn't occur
    	to (or concern) the men in question, that the woman being hurt.

    	There was a case like this when I was in college.  Two men and
    	a woman were drinking in one of their rooms.  She ended up on
    	the floor with each of these guys scr*wing her.  As word spread
    	thru the dorm, four more guys took a turn, some in her mouth.
    	Others watched.  They all claimed that they thought she was
    	wanted it.
    
    		Linda

    re .56
    
    "they all claimed they thought she wanted it"
    
    That has a suspiciously familiar ring. Sounds almost like the Typical
    Male Fantasy that the media projects all around us everywhere...
    
    Not to suggest any causal relation, of course! ;-)

    	They all claimed that they thought she was
    	wanted it.
    
Well...did she?

I assume from your telling of the tale that you have more information, like
that you knew her and knew she was unhappy about what happened, or know that
she pressed rape charges, or was in counselling because of what happened or
something.

Without that information, why should we assume she *didn't* want it?

D!

    Re .388, because *most* women wouldn't want it, D!
    
    Lorna
    	

Lorna, you said:
>    Re .373, D! I've been in the situation where I've allowed one night
>    of sex with someone who didn't give a shit about me to help get
>    rid of loneliness.  In retrospect it always seemed worse than having
>    just read a good book instead.
 
My comment was just intended to paraphrase yours.  As I understand the
above paragraph, you were lonely, and what you *really* wanted was a
caring, loving *relationship* (with poetic license, = life of love),
but since at that particular time you didn't have it, so you accepted what
appeared to be the next best thing - a night of sex.  Thus my paraphrasing
"a night of sex in lieu of a life of love."  There was no implication there
that you couldn't find your "life of love" with some other man at some 
other time!  Just that for that night, you took what you could get (and
later decided that it wasn't worth it.)

Anyway, I am still interested in the answer to my question:

>Do you still consider it immoral if you ignore the fact that she was
>mentally impaired?

D!

>    Re .388, because *most* women wouldn't want it, D!

Lorna, that note was entered as *support* for the contention that most women
wouldn't want it.  We can't assume the conclusion - that's circular.  

I said that most women don't, but some do.  Then someone gave what I guess
was supposed to be a data-point about it happening, and people assuming that
she was "one of the one's who do".  If you are going to argue *against*
people making that assumption, you should have more evidence that in that
instant it *wasn't* true than just the assumption that it wasn't.

In other words, this argument's premises are it's conclusions and it isn't
going anywhere.

A: I think it is okay to assume X.
B: Not it isn't, because in this situation X was false.
A: What makes you think that X was false in that situation?
A: I assumed it.

Doesn't work.

D!

   >I assume from your telling of the tale that you have more information, like
>that you knew her and knew she was unhappy about what happened, or know that
>she pressed rape charges, or was in counselling because of what happened or
>something.
    
	Correct.
    
>Without that information, why should we assume she *didn't* want it?
    
    	Because we have the human capacity to empathize.
    
    		Linda

>>Without that information, why should we assume she *didn't* want it?
    
  >  	Because we have the human capacity to empathize.
    
Linda,

You appear to be missing my point too.  Your above statement is *very* loaded.
In a discussion about *whether* it is possible for a woman to desire
something most women don't, you give us a situation where that thing
happened...and then imply that *obviously* she didn't like it, because
most women wouldn't.  Please read what I said to Lorna - if you are
discussing the usefulness/correctness of certain assumptions, you *can't*
*use* *those* *assumptions* *as* *premises*.

*I* have the human capacity to empathize.  That very loaded, very judgemental
statement above implies that it is *obvious* that she didn't enjoy it to
anyone who is capable of empathy.  Yet it is not obvious to me!  

You merely described a situation, and through *empathy* with a person about
whom the *only* thing we know is that she is a female college student, you want
us to predict her reactions.

This clearly means that you expect us to put ourselves in her shoes, and
imagine how *we* would feel, and then it would be obvious how she feels.

This is *wrong* and this is the whole point I am trying to get across.  Just
becuse you, or Lorna, or hundreds of other women would feel terrible in her
shoes is *not* enough to *prove* that that woman felt terrible!!!

Empathy does *not* mean "What would *my* reaction be to your situation?";
empathy means feeling with another person and *their* reactions, not yours!
The statement that we should be able to empathize with a woman we know *nothing*
about implies that the mere fact that she is a woman should give us total
understand about her feelings!

Grrrrr....

D!

	D!

	I think that you should take a few minutes and read a number of
	the notes in this file  and v1 where women talk about how they
	have experienced sexual attention against their wishes and how
	NO was not understood to mean NO.  Now if you want to argue that
	maybe just maybe the woman did "want it" I would like to know
	what you base your assumtion on - a survey on one?????

	The terms used is "most women" not all.  If you happen to be one
	of the women who would like to have men line up to screw you, fine
	but state it as a survey of one or if you have a few friends or
	know 100 women who would.  I personally know of one woman who
	would try to kill any man who tried this action.

	_peggy

    This is interesting.  D, I would guess (and as always am open to
    correction) that your reaction comes from your interest in and
    attraction to S&M, while Linda's is "statistical":  most women would
    not be interested in an experience like that.  Now, you're quite right
    that there is no way to determine from the information given whether
    the particular woman of the anecdote did or did not enjoy the
    experience, but I'd sure put my money on the "not", wouldn't you?  :-)
    
    						=maggie

Somehow D!'s notes seemed perfectly clear to me, but .394 doesn't seem to
be responding to the same notes that I read.

I believe that D! is simply saying the following:

	If a person X whom we don't know had an experience that we weren't 
	present at, then we can legitimately say:

		I would hate it if that happened to me.

		Most people I know would hate it if that happened to them.

		(Based on appropriate statistical data) The overwhelming
		majority of people would hate it if that happened to them.

	What we *can't* legitimately say is:

		I know that X hated it.

	We can, of course, apply our statistical data and say "There is an
	a priori probability of 97% that X hated it," but that completely
	abstracts the particular situation, and is not qualitatively
	different (though it might be quantitatively more accurate) than
	(for example) "of course she want's to have children -- she's a
	woman, isn't she?"

-Neil

Peggy,

excuse me for a moment...


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

There...now, on to your note (aka totally unwarranted flame):

>	have experienced sexual attention against their wishes and how
>	NO was not understood to mean NO.  

Er, beg your pardon?  I didn't see any mention in Linda's little story about
the woman saying "no".  Did you?  That would have entirely changed the story. So
clearly your statement that I should read messages about women who have been
raped is not related to the current discussion about gang-bangs.  Are you
responding to something I said a long time ago?  If so, please remind me.

>Now if you want to argue that
>	maybe just maybe the woman did "want it" I would like to know
>	what you base your assumtion on - a survey on one?????

In the current discussion I have not made a single suggestion that a woman
who said "no" really meant "yes".  We did have a discussion about that about
a month ago, where I made a lot of comments about this, none of which were
as simplistic as "saying no when they mean yes."  If you are responding to one
of those notes, please give me a pointer so that I know what you are talking
about.

Secondly, I would like you to quote (verbatim please) the place where I
make the assumption you assert.  I am not at all clear what that assumption
was that you are refering to, it would help to have the text here.

IF you mean that I assumed that "maybe just maybe...", then it seems to be
it is (almost) *always* warranted to assume that something *might* have been
possible.  It seems strange to apply the term "assumption" to that statement
that something "maybe just maybe..." true, but I guess linguistically it 
works.

>	The terms used is "most women" not all.  

I didn't say all did.  or didn't.  Or might.  Or anything about all women.
I said (if I haven't stated it clearly enough): It is NOT acceptable to
condemn a man for doing something that a woman *said* she wanted, on the grounds
that since *most* women wouldn't want that, then it should be obvious to him
that *she* doesn't want that.  I am making two points: 1) if *some* woman
some where might want it, then how come a man is required to assume that
*this* woman doesn't know what she's talking about when she says she wants it,
and 2) it isn't *necessarily* true that she doesn't want it just because most
women don't want it.

>If you happen to be one
>	of the women who would like to have men line up to screw you, fine
>	but state it as a survey of one or if you have a few friends or
>	know 100 women who would.

State *what* as survey?  I haven't made a statements that implied that even
one woman *did* want it.  Only that one woman *might* want it.  Might.  
Maybe.  Possibly.  Perhaps.  Capiche?

>  I personally know of one woman who
>	would try to kill any man who tried this action.

Horrible.  This is a friend of yours?  Gah.  Well I haven't been in any gang-
bangs recently, but if I am ever in one voluntarily, I will be sure *not* to
mention the names of the men involved to the woman you know else she might
try to kill them.  Lovely.

Maggie:

> D, I would guess (and as always am open to
>    correction) that your reaction comes from your interest in and
>    attraction to S&M

Not in particular, no.  My reaction comes from a general hot-button about
people assuming that because *most* people react some way, that no person
can react differently.  In this discussion the claim is even worse: not
only can *no* woman want a gang-bang, no man is allowed to assume that a
particular woman *might* (MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT) want one.

Since suddenly my personal sexual tastes seem to have become relevent to
the conversation, I'll answer the burning question on everyone's mind: no,
I do not want a gang-bang.  Yes, I suspect that *I*, in the woman's position
Linda described, or the Dirty Dancing situation, would not be happy about
what happened.  But I acknowledge the possibility that some woman might want
it, and that if she does, the men who do it to her should *not* *be*
*condmened*!

>Now, you're quite right
>    that there is no way to determine from the information given whether
>    the particular woman of the anecdote did or did not enjoy the
>    experience, but I'd sure put my money on the "not", wouldn't you? 

Absolutely!  If I had money riding on it, I would bet a good 100:1 odds
or more that she didn't enjoy it.

But the implication in the note was that the men should have *assumed*
that she wouldn't like it, even if she claimed otherwise (since there was no
mention in the anecdote about her saying "no", I will assume she didn't...
if she did say "no", the point I am making remains, it just doesn't apply
to this situation.)

I would be *damned* upset if I told a man I wanted him to do X to me, and
he said "No, you are saying that, but I know that most women wouldn't enjoy
it, so I am going to assume that *you* won't enjoy it, so I won't do it."  I
would be *doubly* pissed if someone else came in later, after I convinced the
guy I really wanted it, and condemned him for it!

That is what Lorna (and apparantly Linda) are doing.  Condemning the men
involved for believing a woman when she says she has desires that most women
do not.

Talk about devaluing!  "She says she wants X, but most women don't want X
so she must not know what she's talking about.  And men better assume she
doesn't know what she is talking about."

I do *not* think the responsibility lies with *me* to try and figure out
if someone *else* is making a decision they will regret in the morning.
I refuse to be condemned for not assuming that my partner is just like
everyone else in his or her class.

D!

    Re .394:
    
    > I think that you should take a few minutes and read a number of the
    > notes in this file and v1 where women talk about how they have
    > experienced sexual attention against their wishes and how NO was not
    > understood to mean NO.
    
    Disclaimer:  I am not writing this response to express an opinion.  I
    am only trying to clear up a misunderstanding that I think I see
    between two people.
    
    In the original note, it was not said that the woman did not consent.
    If I am correct, Dianne is just saying that we need to be told that the
    women did not consent before we can conclude with any certainty that
    she did not consent.  In other words, nobody is saying no doesn't mean
    no; it is just that a part of the story was missing.
    
    
    				-- edp

re: .396

Yeah, that's all I thought she was saying, too.

The rules of logic aren't suspended just because we're talking about something
that's very painful and distressing for all concerned. 

--bonnie

    D!,  I replied that yes there was additional information.  No, I
    am not going to share it so that we can speculate more.  When I 
    observe a situation where I think someone is being hurt, I use my 
    own assumptions and observations to decide how to react.  If it
    was unclear, I may say something like, "Are you okay?"  If the person
    said, "Yes, I'm loving it!" I would back off.  I would not walk
    away saying "That is one sick/bad woman."  If it really seemed to
    me that she was acting in a self-destructive way I may worry about 
    her, but I would certainly not condemn her, especially not on any
    moral grounds.
      Regarding my perceptions, I have never heard a woman speak of
    how she enjoyed the experience of getting drunk and having men who
    she did not select line up to get off while other men, who she
    also did not select, and who were her neighbors, watched.  It would
    really surprise me.  Yet all the men who participated in
    this apparently thought it was very common for women to enjoy such
    an experience, or didn't care.  That is what I found disturbing.
    	Linda

    I think it is unethical for a more powerful person to have sex with 
    a less powerful person.  I guess my sense of how unethical it is 
    would vary depending  on how wide the power gap is.  I think that this 
    kind of power gap excludes S&M sex, because I believe that choosing to 
    give power temporarily to another is an act of power (if there were actual 
    power imbalances in the relationship between two or more people involved 
    in S&M, then my other idea about the ethics of it still holds (in my 
    mind).)
    
    In the case of the dirty dancing rape I believe the 4 men had a lot more
    power than the woman -- both because there were 4 of them and because
    she was drunk and seemed to have some other impairment because of her
    car accident. I don't understand enough of the law or of the facts of the 
    case to be able to comment on what sentence should have been handed down.  
    But in my gut, I feel that it was ethically wrong for those 4 men to have 
    sex with a woman who was drunk (and in some way impaired because of her 
    accident).  {I put that last part in parentheses, because I would feel it 
    was unethical even if she'd only been drunk and not otherwise impaired.}  
    
    I suppose that it is possible that some women might like to invite 4 men 
    over to get drunk and have sex.  And I suppose that if that was this 
    woman's intention -- to get drunk and have sex with these 4 men, then I 
    have to work at adjusting my judgement of the situation.  But what I 
    think, feel, and know about myself and about other women -- suggests to 
    me that this is not true.
    
    I can't *know* that, though, so my arguments won't pass any kind of logic
    test.  In fact, I believe we'd all need more facts to be able to *prove*
    anything.  But I'm comfortable talking about what I feel and what I 
    believe.  I believe that those men took advantage of the women's impairment
    (from both the alcohol and perhaps from whatever her injuries were) and
    that they were wrong to do it.  If they also happened to break some laws
    (and in my opinion the law has a hard time addressing crimes against women,
    because it was designed to address crimes against men), then I hope they
    are punished appropriately according to those laws.
    
    Justine

    RE: .402
    
    Thanks! *That* was what was bothering me all along! The imbalance
    of *power*. Yes. Absolutely. 
    
    I agree with Justine.
    
    (Parenthetically, I think we here must be very careful not to pander to
    the typical societal reaction that "she was asking for it". If I knew
    50 women, and 40 of them wanted to have a "gang-bang" with 4 guys, I
    think it would be acceptable to figure lots of women were interested in
    that. No woman I know - not one - is interested in that. And
    apparently, there are other women here who know NO women who are
    interested in it, either.  And yet, we are being asked to believe that
    this *one* woman in the news story is part of such a small minority. 
    
    Even when it's a "gang-bang", even when it's obviously a power
    imbalanced situation, even when the woman has mental impairments of
    some sort, we are *still* asked to believe she was asking for it.
    To what lengths will we go to hang it on ourselves?)
    
    Again, we don;t have all the facts. But there was, indeed, a power 
    imbalance and - one more time - I think those men/boys acted
    irresponsibly.
    
    --DE
    

RE: .402 (Justine)

    What standard are you using to define "power" here?  Do you mean
    physical power, the perceived relative power of the individuals
    involved, political power, willpower, economic power, legal power,
    or mental acuity?  

    I am under the impression from your note that the "power" you 
    cite derived from a mixture of various factors, but find it
    difficult to conceive of how they would be weighed in order to
    reach a composite "power measurement".  How do you weigh someone
    who's more manipulative than their partner against someone who is 
    more intelligent than their partner?

    To take this concept to a perhaps ridiculous extreme, most people 
    I know find it awkward enough to bring up the topic of birth control 
    beforehand, or what to do if there's an unwanted pregnancy.  I can't 
    see power balances being weighed, especially if it's irrelevant 
    (i.e., he may be a world-class weightlifter with bulging muscles and 
    she a sedentary sort, but if he doesn't assert that power against her, 
    does it matter that he _could_?  Does it mean that he should only have
    sex with other world-class weightlifters?)

    Also, there's an implicit assumption here that since there were
    4 men and 1 woman involved here, that it was 4 against 1.  While I
    think that assumption is legitimated by the context of this particular
    case, I don't think that it's fair to judge all 4-male-1-female group-sex
    situations by that premise.  And if one is judging the potential ethics
    of a situation by the metric you describe, then to reach the conclusion
    you did, one would have to do just that.  But if we take a hypothetical
    situation in which three of the males regularly convened for group sex
    every Saturday night, say, and one Saturday night they invited a friend
    and his wife to join them...  I think the power equations would get a 
    little blurry.

    I, myself, would tend to think that viewing a sexual encounter in 
    terms of an adversarial power relationship would be a signal of potential
    trouble in and of itself, but perhaps I just misunderstood what you
    were trying to say.

	Sharon

    There's a  difference  between  unwise  behaviour,  morally  wrong
    behaviour, and illegal behaviour.

    It seems fairly clear that these four young men's behaviour was at
    best unwise, and probably difficult to defend morally, but I'm not
    so sure that it was illegal. If whe didn't say no (to at least one
    of  them),  and  was  concious  the  whole  time, then I don't see
    anything  illegal. Deciding the next day that a particular sex act
    was  unwise  and  regrettable  has probably happened to many of us
    (including  me),  but  if  there  was  no  objection  at the time,
    deciding  the  next  day  that this particular act was regrettable
    doesn't make it rape.

--David

>    Now, you're quite right
>    that there is no way to determine from the information given whether
>    the particular woman of the anecdote did or did not enjoy the
>    experience, but I'd sure put my money on the "not", wouldn't you?  :-)
 
     Certainly. However, in order to obtain a conviction, a certain level
    of proof must be attained. You don't convict just because it's a "safer
    bet."
    
     The Doctah
                                                      

    Re .403:
    
    > And yet, we are being asked to believe that this *one* woman in the
    > news story is part of such a small minority.
    
    Oh.  I see.  So if many people in some group have some characteristic,
    you are saying that not only is it okay to assume that a person in the
    group has that characteristic, but in fact we SHOULD assume that a
    person in the group has that characteristic?
    
    
    				-- edp

>    I think it is unethical for a more powerful person to have sex with 
>    a less powerful person.
    
     That is pretty all encompassing. Every sexual union must be forged on
    equal power or it is unethical?
    
>    I can't *know* that, though, so my arguments won't pass any kind of logic
>    test.  In fact, I believe we'd all need more facts to be able to *prove*
>    anything.  But I'm comfortable talking about what I feel and what I 
>    believe.
    
     It sounds alot like you are talking about the general case where the
    specific facts can be represented by gut feelings of how you would
    expect such a thing to occur as opposed to the facts that relate to
    this particular case.
    
>    (and in my opinion the law has a hard time addressing crimes against women,
>    because it was designed to address crimes against men)
    
     That is a crock. The law is designed to address crimes against people.
    Certain crimes that happen to occur more often to women are harder to
    prove because of the nature of the crime, not because those mean old
    men don't care because the victims are _only women_.
    
     The Doctah

    Yes, edp, that is the better *beginning* assumption.
    
    						Ann B.

re .408
    
>    (and in my opinion the law has a hard time addressing crimes against women,
>    because it was designed to address crimes against men)
    
>>     That is a crock. The law is designed to address crimes against people.
>>     Certain crimes that happen to occur more often to women are harder to
>>     prove because of the nature of the crime, not because those mean old
>>     men don't care because the victims are _only women_.
    

Gee. I'd love to hear how you'd apply this reasoning to (for starters) laws 
(or lack of laws) against marital rape.

    Re .409:
    
    > Yes, edp, that is the better *beginning* assumption.
    
    Okay, so we'll judge all women based on the pattern defined by the
    general behavior of them, and all blacks based on their general
    pattern, and all Jews . . .  Congratulations, you just supported
    stereotyping people.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Only if you stick to the actualities; i.e., your average person
    is honest, hard-working, willing to think, things like that.
    
    You see, edp, one begins with the most charitable assumptions:
    The witness is telling the truth; the defendant is innocent; the
    judge is honest and impartial.  Then we have an adversarial set
    of activities called a trial, and the jury questions everything
    that the prosecution, defense, and judge brought to their
    attention.  It works very well.
    
    							Ann B.

RE:  .402 (Justine)

Thanks for that reply.  You said much better than I could what I was
thinking and feeling on the subject but could not put into words...

john

Justine's absolutely right, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, there's
a big difference between something being unwise, something being immoral,
and something being illegal.

I can conceive of circumstances under which I would, if sufficiently drunk, 
lustful, or otherwise throwing common sense to the wind,
consent to group sex with a bunch of men.  I would probably enjoy it at the
time.  And in the morning I would almost certainly wake up convinced it was
the dumbest thing I ever did, probably feeling demeaned and dirty and 
ashamed of myself.  

That would mean I made a mistake (and not the first one I've made in the 
sexual arena, either). It wouldn't mean the men did anything wrong.  It 
certainly wouldn't mean I had been raped!  Saying they should have known 
I was making a mistake would be a cop-out, trying to blame them for my
own bad decision.

--bonnie

    Re .412:
    
    > Only if you stick to the actualities; i.e., your average person
    > is honest, hard-working, willing to think, things like that.

    Oh, of course.  One should just ASSUME about any stranger that they are
    the "default person".  One should just assume about any Jew what one
    knows about Jews in general.  One should just assume about any black
    what one knows about blacks in general.  One should just assume about
    any woman what one knows about women in general.
    
    All you are doing is making the same mistake any bigot makes: 
    Stereotyping people.  There is no magic "actuality meter" that tells
    people which characteristics are actualities and which are incorrect. 
    It is WRONG to assume that a specific person fits a particular mold.
    Further, I did not bring this up in relation to honesty, hard-working,
    or willingness to think.  It is okay to give people the benefit of the
    doubt on those, but this was brought up in relation to supposing what a
    person's sexual desires are.  It is WRONG to assume that a person
    CANNOT have certain desires simply because YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE DO
    NOT.
    
    It is WRONG to judge another person according to YOUR DESIRES.  People
    are different, individual human beings, and their diversity should be
    cherished, not denied.
    
    
    				-- edp

>   And yet, we are being asked to believe that
>    this *one* woman in the news story is part of such a small minority. 
 
Certainly the defense attourney(s) are asking you (in a general sense) to
believe that.  I hope you understand that *I* am not asking you to believe
that, or in fact, to believe *anything* about the situation.  I am asking
you to entertain the *possibility*, without rejecting it out of hand simply
because *most* women don't belong to that minority.

I am *not* discussing the legality of the situation.  It is certainly a
good thing to discuss, but it is not what I am discussing.  I am discussing
the *ethics* of the situation, and I was prompted by Lorna's far reaching
statement that it is immoral to (I forget her exact words) have sex with
a woman you are not interested in when what she really wants is love and
affection, especially if that person is drunk and/or mentally "impaired."

The real specifics of this case aren't relevent to the discussion.  If she
said "no" and tried to fight the men off, then it's rape.  If her disability
was severe enough to prevent her from making rational decisions, then it
was statutory rape.  I just want to demonstrate that it is not *enough*
to say that "most women wouldn't like what happened to her" to prove that
1) she didn't want what happened to her, and 2) the men are to blame for
"taking advantage of her."

I believe it was Justine that brought up the comment about imbalance of
power.  (BTW, thank you for the comment on S&M...you are right, most S&M
relationships do not involve an inherent imbalance of power - one person
*chooses* to relenquish power, and the ability to make that decision is
actually empowering...but anyway...)  I am not convinced that the situation
is that black and white.  It seems to me that in 90% of heterosexual sex,
the male is more powerful, physically, than the woman.  But, as Sharon said,
if he chooses not to exercise that power (against her will) then it isn't
unethical.  In our culture, it is quite often that the man is more *financially*
powerful.   In any relationship, one person will be older, one is likely to
be better educated, more intelligent, wittier, stronger, whatever.  I think
the key is that if the person with the power does not exert that power to
persuade, coerce or otherwise influence the other into sex, then there isn't
a problem.

BTW, I think Mike made a very important point a while back that got lost
in the shuffle.  If we decide that these men are guilty of rape *because
her mental disability meant that she couldn't give informed consent*, then
every single sexual experience this woman will ever have will also technically
be rape.  (Until she is "cured" or something.)

D!

    I think there may be a fair amount of confusion floating around in this
    discussion, and I would urge everyone to check and make sure that they
    know what someone else is talking about.  For example, my [personal]
    comment about betting with the odds was made in reference to Linda's
    anecdote, not to the event that resulted in the court case; I have no
    opinion about the latter, other than the "mental impairment" may be
    the peculiar hypothalamic damage that results in *greatly* heightened
    sexual interest.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .416  edp
    
    	>> Only if you stick to the actualities; i.e., your average person
    	>> is honest, hard-working, willing to think, things like that.

    	> Oh, of course.  One should just ASSUME about any stranger that 
    	> they are the "default person".  
    
    	Giving "the benefit of the doubt" could fall into this category,
    	as you mention later in your note.
    
    	> One should just assume about any Jew what one knows about Jews 
    	> in general.  One should just assume about any black what one knows 
    	> about blacks in general.  One should just assume about any woman 
    	> what one knows about women in general.
    
    	When charaterizes Jews/blacks/women as being dishonest, sneaky or
    	stupid, is it stereotyping to think to oneself, "Wait a minute!
    	I've known *many* Jews/blacks/women who were definitely *far* from
    	being dishonest, sneaky or stupid!  Something is wrong with this
    	characterization!"
    
    	> All you are doing is making the same mistake any bigot makes: 
    	> Stereotyping people.  
    
    	This isn't true when giving people "the benefit of the doubt,"
    	as you well know.
    
    	> It is okay to give people the benefit of the doubt on those, but 
    	> this was brought up in relation to supposing what a person's sexual 
    	> desires are.  It is WRONG to assume that a person CANNOT have 
    	> certain desires simply because YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT.
    
    	How about if we give the woman involved in this rape the benefit of
    	the doubt (since none of us are members of the jury and are only
    	discussing it here as outsiders.)
    
    	When someone says [paraphrased], "She probably wanted a nice gang bang 
    	that afternoon, then changed her mind later" - how about we give *HER*
    	the benefit of the doubt, since there is no concrete proof that this is
    	what happened.
    
    	> It is WRONG to judge another person according to YOUR DESIRES.  People
    	> are different, individual human beings, and their diversity should be
    	> cherished, not denied.
    
    	You've alreadgy agreed that "giving the benefit of the doubt" is ok,
    	so your characterization of "wrongness" doesn't always hold.
    
    	The main problem seems to be in agreeing what constitutes "the benefit
    	of the doubt."  

    Re .402, thanks, Justine.  I agree with .402, and .403, unethical
    and irresponsible.
    
    As far as I know none of us was there, so all any of us have given
    here is our opinion.  My opinion seems to be the same as Justine's,
    Dawn's and Linda's.
    
    I think most people base their opinion on what happens in a situation
    like this (it's just the woman's word against the 4 men's word,
    there were no witnesses from what I understand), at least partly
    upon how they would feel in a similar situation.  I think that's
    the first way we learn to empathize with other people, to imagine
    how we would feel in their place, to imagine how situations happened
    we try to imagine how it could ever happen to us.  In some situations,
    I would have to realize that my reaction would be in the minority
    (I would know this from talking to other people, and books, movies,
    tv, etc.), therefore, I would not expect a stranger to feel like
    me in *all* situations.  But, my experiences in life have led me
    to believe that the majority of women would not enjoy a gang-bang,
    so I would, therefore, give a strange woman, who claimed she didn't
    enjoy it, the benefit of the doubt, and think that probably she
    didn't.
    
    As far as edp, and his stereotype claim, I think it's far fetched
    here.  Somehow, saying most women don't like gang-bangs does not
    seem comparable to saying something like "most blacks are not as
    smart as whites" or "most jews are cheap" or other horrible racists
    statements.  For one thing, most women I have known don't like
    gang-bangs, whereas most blacks I have known are not stupid and
    most Jews I have known are not cheap.  It's just not the same thing.
    
    On another issue, I do happen to think that people have a
    responsibility for how their actions will affect other people, whether
    the other person is for or against the action.  If someone asks
    me to do something that I think may hurt the person, I think I,
    or anyone else, has a responsibility to not do whatever it is. 
    If someone said they want to die, and asked me to shoot them, does
    that mean I should do it????
    
    I do know that if I ever found out that a son, or brother, or SO
    of *mine* ever engaged in a gang-bang, with some drunk woman who
    had invited them over and danced around them, I would never want
    to associate with them again.
    
    But, that's just my opinion and people disagree all the time.  None
    of us will ever know what went on inside that woman's head.  But,
    I still think the guys should have known better.   It disgusts me
    to think that there are men who would even *want* to do what they
    did.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    well said Lorna..
    
    vivian

>        On another issue, I do happen to think that people have a
>    responsibility for how their actions will affect other people, whether
>    the other person is for or against the action.  If someone asks
>    me to do something that I think may hurt the person, I think I,
>    or anyone else, has a responsibility to not do whatever it is. 

    	Thanks again Lorna, for expressing this.  I am sensitive to
    the issue that Bonnie raised that people have to take resonsibility
    for their actions, and I certaintly don't want "protectionist" laws
    for women with the assumption made that they can't make decisions
    about their lives.  For that reason, I'm not saying that a sexual
    situation should result in a rape just because the woman regrets
    it the next day.  It depends on if she indicated her objection at
    the time.  However IMHO, it is morally wrong to knowingly hurt someone
    for your own advantage when they are in a powerless position.
    	For example, if a friend of yours was depressed about a divorce
    and over drinks one night offers to sell you the vacation home he
    and his wife bought for 1/10th its true value, would you run and
    get a pen and paper, or say, "No, why don't you think about this
    some more."
    	Linda 

    Re .419:
    
    > Giving "the benefit of the doubt" could fall into this category, as
    > you mention later in your note.
        
    But this is not about "the benefit of the doubt"; I'm not talking about
    assuming whether or not a person is honest.  This was brought up in
    respect to making assumptions about a person's sexual practices, and
    assuming that because a supposed majority of people have certain
    preferences that a particular person MUST have those preferences is
    WRONG.
    
    > How about if we give the woman involved in this rape the benefit of
    > the doubt (since none of us are members of the jury and are only
    > discussing it here as outsiders.)
    
    What on Earth can that phrase mean in this context?  Are you going to
    give the accuser the benefit and thus find the accused guilty based
    upon the existence of doubt?
    
    Suppose for a minute that you admit there is doubt about _everybody_
    involved in the case.  You DO NOT KNOW whether or not the woman
    consent, and you DO NOT KNOW whether the men are guilty or not.  GIVEN
    THAT INFORMATION, what conclusions do you draw?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .419:
    
    > 	When charaterizes Jews/blacks/women as being dishonest, sneaky or
    >	stupid, is it stereotyping to think to oneself, "Wait a minute!
    >	I've known *many* Jews/blacks/women who were definitely *far* from
    >	being dishonest, sneaky or stupid!  Something is wrong with this
    >	characterization!"

    That is an example of NOT placing somebody in a stereotype.  I support
    that.  I do NOT support supposing that because somebody is in some
    group, they MUST have some characteristic that the majority of the
    group has.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .420:
    
    > . . . I would, therefore, give a strange woman, who claimed she
    > didn't enjoy it, the benefit of the doubt, and think that probably she
    > didn't.
    
    The original complaints that were made about the dormitory anecdote
    were that WE WERE NOT TOLD THE WOMAN CLAIMED SHE DID NOT ENJOY IT.  Yet
    some noters were jumping on others for not immediately assuming that
    the woman did not consent.
    
    > Somehow, saying most women don't like gang-bangs does not seem
    > comparable to saying something like "most blacks are not as smart as
    > whites" or "most jews are cheap" or other horrible racists statements.
    
    I did NOT say there was anything wrong with saying MOST women do not
    like group sex.  I DID SAY there IS something wrong with assuming it is
    unbelievable that a PARTICULAR woman does not like group sex JUST
    BECAUSE the majority do not.
                              
    Stereotyping people is WRONG.  It does not even matter if they
    stereotyped characteristics DO or DO NOT apply to the majority --
    including the minority in the stereotype is WRONG.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .423  edp
    
    	>> Giving "the benefit of the doubt" could fall into this category, as
    	>> you mention later in your note.
        
    	> But this is not about "the benefit of the doubt"; I'm not talking 
    	> about assuming whether or not a person is honest.  This was brought 
    	> up in respect to making assumptions about a person's sexual 
    	> practices, and assuming that because a supposed majority of people 
    	> have certain preferences that a particular person MUST have those 
    	> preferences is WRONG.
    
    	Perhaps you'd care to show me where anyone said that it was IMPOSSIBLE
    	that the woman in question wanted to be gang banged (since most women
    	don't seem to care for such things.)  I thought people were saying it
    	was *unlikely* that the woman wanted it, not that she could not
    	*possibly* have wanted it since most women don't.
    
    	How about if someone starts telling me that a certain man likes 
    	screwing baby goats.  Would or would it not be giving him the benefit 
    	of the doubt to say, "Well, very few people screw baby goats, so
    	I find it unlikely that this individual would fall into the small 
    	minority of people who do such things."
    
    	>> How about if we give the woman involved in this rape the benefit of
    	>> the doubt (since none of us are members of the jury and are only
    	>> discussing it here as outsiders.)
    
    	>What on Earth can that phrase mean in this context?  Are you going to
    	>give the accuser the benefit and thus find the accused guilty based
    	>upon the existence of doubt?
    
    	You can quote 'em, even if you don't read 'em, evidently.
    
    	How are we going to find anyone guilty when I've stated quite
    	specifically that WE ARE NOT ON THE JURY!!!!
    
    	>Suppose for a minute that you admit there is doubt about _everybody_
    	>involved in the case.  You DO NOT KNOW whether or not the woman
    	>consent, and you DO NOT KNOW whether the men are guilty or not. GIVEN
    	>THAT INFORMATION, what conclusions do you draw?
    
    	Let's hope that you aren't implying that I should assume that the
    	woman wanted to be gang banged. (No, I'm not assuming that you are.)
    
    	The conclusion I would draw is that there is insufficient information
    	to draw a reliable conclusion as an outsider, but that the odds are
    	against the woman having wanted to be gang banged (so I would refrain
    	from suggesting this as being *likely*.)

Hi Nancy; I'm osrry it took me so long to reply. I've been away, and/or
otherwise occupied.

I think the address he gave is his girlfriend, not the actual survivor. I'll be
glad to ask him, though it seems as if you've forged ahead without me (good
idea).
	Mez

    	RE: .424 edp
    
    	>>When [someone] charaterizes Jews/blacks/women as being dishonest, 
    	>>sneaky or stupid, is it stereotyping to think to oneself, "Wait a 
    	>>minute!  I've known *many* Jews/blacks/women who were definitely 
    	>>*far* from being dishonest, sneaky or stupid!  Something is wrong 
    	>>with this characterization!"
    
    	>That is an example of NOT placing somebody in a stereotype.  I support
        >that.  I do NOT support supposing that because somebody is in some
    	>group, they MUST have some characteristic that the majority of the
    	>group has.
    
    	Let's try my example again.
    
    	When someone characterizes women as being dishonest and sneaky (in
    	that they say women LIE about RAPE, rather than admit that they LIKE
    	things like being gang banged,) is it stereotyping to think to oneself,
     	"Wait a minute!  I've known *many* women who were definitely *far* 
    	from being dishonest or sneaky, and who would *never* seek out a gang 
    	bang then lie about it later!  Something is wrong with this 
    	characterization!"
    
    	Didn't you know it is an unfair STEREOTYPE that "loose women who
    	say YES to all kinds of sex imaginable but change their minds and
    	cry rape against poor innocent men" are the ones involved in rape
    	cases???
    
    	Defense attorneys have been banking on this stereotype in court
    	for a long time.  Where have *you* been?
    
    	It is not a stereotype to try to avoid falling into this unfair
    	stereotype by giving a woman the benefit of the doubt (as OUTSIDE
    	OBSERVERS IN THIS SITUATION.)
    
    	Clearer to you now, Eric?

    Re .427:
    
    >	Perhaps you'd care to show me where anyone said that it was IMPOSSIBLE
    >	that the woman in question wanted to be gang banged (since most women
    >	don't seem to care for such things.)
    
    In .389, Lorna said that we should _assume_ the woman did not consent.
    That is in spite of the fact that there was no evidence the woman did
    not consent, not even a statement in the report that she said she did
    not.  In .392, Linda said we should _assume_ the woman did not want the
    sex "because we have the human capacity to empathize".  Linda just
    dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might have wanted the sex.
    In .394, Peggy implies that Dianne is wrong "to argue that MAYBE JUST
    MAYBE the woman did 'want it'" (emphasis mine).
    
    > I thought people were saying it was *unlikely* that the woman
    > wanted it, not that she could not *possibly* have wanted it since
    > most women don't.
    
    Saying something is unlikely is not the same as saying we should
    _assume_ it is not true.  If you think it is unlikely, then proceed
    with that in mind -- don't just assume it is false.  If you do not know
    if a statement is true or false, you do not necessarily need to assume
    whichever is more likely is true and proceed with that created belief
    -- you can proceed with the thought that YOU DO NOT KNOW.
    
    > Would or would it not be giving him the benefit of the doubt to
    > say, "Well, very few people screw baby goats, so I find it unlikely
    > that this individual would fall into the small minority of people
    > who do such things."
    
    I ask again:  What does it mean to give the person the benefit of the
    doubt?  If, in these circumstances, giving the person the benefit of
    the doubt means not accusing them of an illegal or immoral act because
    you are not certain there is an illegal or immoral act, then, yes, you
    would be giving the person in your example the benefit of the doubt.

    >	The conclusion I would draw is that there is insufficient information
    >	to draw a reliable conclusion as an outsider, but that the odds are
    >	against the woman having wanted to be gang banged (so I would refrain
    >	from suggesting this as being *likely*.)
    
    Please explain to me how that gives the woman the benefit of the doubt.
    Also, since there is doubt, please explain to me how you might give the
    men the benefit of the doubt, supposing that you wanted to.
                                                             
    
    				-- edp

    Re .429:
    
    > 	When someone characterizes women as being dishonest and sneaky (in
    >	that they say women LIE about RAPE, rather than admit that they LIKE
    >	things like being gang banged,) is it stereotyping to think to oneself,
    > 	"Wait a minute!  I've known *many* women who were definitely *far* 
    >	from being dishonest or sneaky, and who would *never* seek out a gang 
    >	bang then lie about it later!  Something is wrong with this 
    >	characterization!"

    That is again an example of not stereotyping a person.  I have already
    said I support not stereotyping people.
    
    > 	Didn't you know it is an unfair STEREOTYPE that "loose women who
    >	say YES to all kinds of sex imaginable but change their minds and
    >	cry rape against poor innocent men" are the ones involved in rape
    >	cases???

    I fail to see how this is relevant in any way.  I have NOT said that we
    should assume any person is in such a stereotype.
    
    Do you think that if I say we should not place a group of people into
    one stereotype that I am therefore saying we should place them into
    another?
    
    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .430  edp
    
    >> Perhaps you'd care to show me where anyone said that it was IMPOSSIBLE
    >> that the woman in question wanted to be gang banged (since most women
    >> don't seem to care for such things.)
    
    > In .389, Lorna said that we should _assume_ the woman did not consent.
    > That is in spite of the fact that there was no evidence the woman did
    > not consent, not even a statement in the report that she said she did
    > not.  In .392, Linda said we should _assume_ the woman did not want the
    > sex "because we have the human capacity to empathize".  Linda just
    > dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might have wanted the sex.
    > In .394, Peggy implies that Dianne is wrong "to argue that MAYBE JUST
    > MAYBE the woman did 'want it'" (emphasis mine).
    
    	First off, it is important to point out that this is a different
    	case than the one with the mentally impaired woman (just to keep
    	things straight.)
    
    	Second, Linda "dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might
    	have wanted the sex" because she had ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about
    	the case that she chose not to present here (and you chose not to
    	notice when you found her reply, evidently.)
    
    	> Saying something is unlikely is not the same as saying we should
    	> _assume_ it is not true.  
    
    	Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is an ASSUMPTION!  If
    	you feel we should never make a positive ASSUMPTION about anyone,
    	then you ought to be arguing against giving the benefit of the
    	doubt *and* the fight against stereotypes.
    
    	> If, in these circumstances, giving the person the benefit of
    	> the doubt means not accusing them of an illegal or immoral act because
    	> you are not certain there is an illegal or immoral act, then, yes, you
    	> would be giving the person in your example the benefit of the doubt.
    
    	False accusations of rape are immoral and/or illegal, so assuming
    	that the woman did not do that is THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
    
    	Glad that's settled.

417�	If her disability was severe enough to prevent her from making  
417�	rational decisions, then it was statutory rape.
    
                                    
    I have a problem with the above statement.
    
    This would mean that any person who was (or might be) deemed to
    be unable to make rational decisions would be precluded from sex.
    Because any potential partner would be taking a risk even if the
    person asked for sex in words of one syllable.  How many of us are
    competent to decide just who is/is not capable of making rational
    decisions.
    
    Going back to the original story, even if the men (boys) knew she
    had a mental disorder, I doubt that they knew just what the effects
    of that disorder might be.  If they didn't know, would they still
    be guilty of anything (legally that is)?

    
    re. 420
    
   > As far as edp, and his stereotype claim, I think it's far fetched
   > here.  Somehow, saying most women don't like gang-bangs does not
   > seem comparable to saying something like "most blacks are not as
   > smart as whites" or "most jews are cheap" or other horrible racists
   > statements.  For one thing, most women I have known don't like
   > gang-bangs, whereas most blacks I have known are not stupid and
   > most Jews I have known are not cheap.  It's just not the same thing.
    
    Just a nit here, but what I believe edp is saying the it is still
    stereotypical to say that becuase if "most blacks are not stupid" then
    it follows that "NO blacks are not stupid".
    
    Again this is just my opinion of what edp is trying to say
    
    ed

    	RE: .431  edp
    
    	> Do you think that if I say we should not place a group of people into
    	> one stereotype that I am therefore saying we should place them into
    	> another?
    
    	What you are doing is fighting the idea of others fighting an unfair
    	stereotype (because you have failed to recognize that this is what
    	is being done.)
    
    	Clearly, the women should be given the benefit of the doubt in this
    	conference (since we are NOT sitting on a jury.)
    
    	Labeling this "benefit of the doubt" a stereotype is preposterous.

    
    	RE: .434 NEUMYER
    
    	> Just a nit here, but what I believe edp is saying the it is still
    	> stereotypical to say that becuase if "most blacks are not stupid" then
    	> it follows that "NO blacks are not stupid".
    
    	Yes, I agree that this is what he is trying to say, and also regard
    	it as *most inappropriate* in this discussion since no one has claimed
    	that there are NO women in the entire world who like group sex.
    

    Re .432:
    
    > 	First off, it is important to point out that this is a different
    >	case than the one with the mentally impaired woman (just to keep
    >	things straight.)

    And that different case is what started this string, just to keep
    things straight.
    
    > 	Second, Linda "dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might
    >	have wanted the sex" because she had ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about
    >	the case that she chose not to present here (and you chose not to
    >	notice when you found her reply, evidently.)

    BUT she was chastising Dianne for NOT coming to a conclusion WITHOUT
    that information.
    
    > 	Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is an ASSUMPTION!
    
    No, it is not.  You can give somebody the benefit of the doubt without
    assuming what they are saying is true.  You simply SUSPEND JUDGEMENT
    and do not take action against the person.
    
    > 	False accusations of rape are immoral and/or illegal, so assuming
    >	that the woman did not do that is THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
    >
    >	Glad that's settled.

    You did not answer my question:  What would it mean to give the men the
    benefit of the doubt, supposing you wanted to?  Also, could you give
    both the woman and the men the benefit of the doubt?  If so, how?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .435:
    
    > 	What you are doing is fighting the idea of others fighting an unfair
    >	stereotype (because you have failed to recognize that this is what
    >	is being done.)

    You have misinterpreted my words.  I am not fighting people fighting an
    unfair stereotype.  I am fighting an unfair stereotype.
    
    > 	Clearly, the women should be given the benefit of the doubt in this
    >	conference (since we are NOT sitting on a jury.)

    Please explain that.
    
    
    				-- edp

    in re mental compency..
    
    my 15 year old son is mildly retarded..
    
    should he never have sex?
    
    in re gang banging..
    
    being a devils advocate here, by the way on both questions..
    
    a common fantasy as reported by Nancy Friday in 'Forbidden Flowers'
    and its sequel (more forbidden flowers?).... sex with more than
    one man is a common fantasy among women...tho for most of us a fantasy
    is a fantasy ...not something we act out..
    
    so maybe this young woman had such a fantasy and was drunk enough
    to let down her barriers and act it out, and things got away from her..
    
    that is tragic and embarassing and painful but still not rape..
    
    I'd suspect that there are a number of heterosexual women who
    might enjoy hving two or more men spend time together telling her
    and showing her how beautiful and wonderful and sexy she was..
    
    at least as a fantasy..
    
    so she might be tempted if 'high' or drunk to act out a day dream..
    
    Bonnie

    Questions for Suzanne Conlon:
    
    What would it mean to give the men the benefit of the doubt, supposing
    you wanted to?  Also, could you give both the woman and the men the
    benefit of the doubt?  If so, how?

    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .437  edp
    
    	> And that different case is what started this string, just to keep
    	> things straight.
    
    	Meanwhile, people are still talking about the case with the mentally
    	impaired woman, so it's helpful to keep it in mind.
    
    	> BUT she was chastising Dianne for NOT coming to a conclusion WITHOUT
    	> that information.
    
    	When asked, "Without that information, why should we assume she
    	*didn't* want it?" - Linda replied, "Because we have the human
    	capacity to empathize."
    
    	Does that sound like chastising to you???  It doesn't to me.  It
    	sounds more like a suggestion and/or an explanation.
    
    	>> Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is an ASSUMPTION!
    
    	>No, it is not.  You can give somebody the benefit of the doubt without
    	>assuming what they are saying is true.  You simply SUSPEND JUDGEMENT
    	>and do not take action against the person.
    
    	Ok, *some* benefits of the doubts are assumptions, then.  What sort of 
    	"benefit" would there be to "suspend judgment," after all, if there is 
    	never any additional information forthcoming about the accusation 
    	involved?
    
    	For example, getting back to the case of the man accused of screwing
    	baby goats:  If we give him the benefit of the doubt, aren't we making
    	the assumption that it isn't true (or do we make him live under a
    	shadow for the rest of his life by deciding, "We will simply suspend
    	judgment about whether or not he screws baby goats until we know for 
    	certain ONE WAY OR THE OTHER even if it takes the rest of our lives
    	to find out.")  Not much charity in that, is there?
    
    	The "benefit of the doubt" is a gift - we choose to assume that some
    	hideous accusations about another person are not true (in light of the 
    	lack of clear evidence that the accusations *are* true.)  
    
    	>You did not answer my question:  What would it mean to give the men the
    	>benefit of the doubt, supposing you wanted to?  Also, could you give
    	>both the woman and the men the benefit of the doubt?  If so, how?
    
    	As I mentioned, giving the benefit of the doubt is a gift.  No one is
    	required to do it, although there certainly isn't a problem with
    	anyone making a *suggestion* that someone should be given the benefit
    	of the doubt.
    
    	As for the men involved with the mentally impaired woman, they've been 
    	convicted of a crime, so it's quite a bit harder (for me, at least) to 
    	give them the benefit of the doubt since their guilt has been "proven" 
    	in a court of law.
    
    	As for the men involved with the dormitory situation (brought up by
    	Linda,) I don't have enough of the facts present to know if I can give
    	them the benefit of the doubt. I seem to recall that they were reported
    	to have thought she wanted the gang bang, which sounds a bit fishy to
    	me on the surface (since a commonly used defense for most rape cases
    	seems to be, "She wanted me to do it," even when the victim has been
    	beaten to a pulp.)
    
    	My hesitancy about giving these men the benefit of the doubt is not
    	because they are men, and certainly not because I think all men are
    	rapists (or anything remotely similar to that.)
    
    	My benefit of the doubt is a gift, and I hesitate to give it to 
    	people accused of rape simply on the basis of their having said that
    	"the victim wanted it."  (It's too common a rape defense for me to
    	believe it *without question*, and it has nothing to do with a
    	negative belief about men.  If anything, it has to do with a negative
    	belief about lawyers, and our legal system.)
    
    	Luckily for the defendants in rape cases, they are NOT dependent on
    	my opinion as an outsider (nor do they probably care about whether or
    	not I am personally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

        After reading 1 newspaper account,  the first thing I thought was
        it sounded like section 213.1.b of the Model Penal Code would
        apply.

        What disturbed me the most about this case was that the judge
        allowed the defense attorney(s) to submit as evidence and show
        segments of the Dirty Dancing movie to the jury.

                                                     nancy b.


        Note 961.2  -< Legal definitions from which states make laws >-

        Model Penal Code

           Section 213.1  Rape and Related Offenses

           (1)Rape.  A male who has sexual intercourse with a female
                     not his wife is guilty of rape if:
             .
             .

           A man who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife
        commits
           a felony of the third degree if:
             .
             .

              (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
        defect
              which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
             her conduct; or
	     .
	     .

    	RE: .445  Nancy
    
    	> A man who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife
        > commits
        >   a felony of the third degree if:
        >     .
        >     .

        >      (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
        > defect
        >      which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
        >      her conduct; or
	     
    	Some years ago, I knew a man in college who spent time in jail
    	for this very offense.  He and his friends used to play cards
    	with a man who would send the card players into the bedroom
    	in shifts to sleep with his wife during the game.  (Both the
    	man and his wife were retarded.)
    
    	When the wife's mother went to their house one night, two or
    	three men were in bed with her daughter (so she called the cops.)
    	The men present (who'd had intercourse with the wife that night)
    	were convicted and sent to prison.
    
    	The man I knew was fully convinced of his own responsibility in
    	this situation - he knew the woman and her husband were both
    	retarded, and also knew he was breaking the law, but went ahead
    	and participated in nightly/weekly gang bangs anyway.  He served
    	his time, and admitted (to me, personally) that his behavior was
    	a foolish mistake.  He felt remorse, but no self-pity at all for
    	having served time for this crime.

    
    
    
    			Reverse peristalsis.
    
    
    

    Re .443:
    
    > What sort of "benefit" would there be to "suspend judgment," . . .
    
    The benefit is in not taking action against a person, because there is
    doubt that there is reason to.
    
    > If we give him the benefit of the doubt, aren't we making	the
    > assumption that it isn't true . . . 
    
    Not necessarily.  As I said previously, one does not need to assume a
    particular statement is true or false.  A person can proceed without
    making an assumption either way.
    
    > . . . (or do we make him live under a shadow for the rest of his life
    > by deciding, "We will simply suspend judgment about whether or not he
    > screws baby goats until we know for certain ONE WAY OR THE OTHER even
    > if it takes the rest of our lives to find out.")
    
    Is that so difficult?  Do you always have to act as if _maybe_ the
    person is guilty (and thus be suspicious) or can you act as if _you do
    not know_ (and thus not act suspicious)?
    
    > Not much charity in that, is there?
    
    I do not see anything wrong with that state.
    
    > 	As for the men involved with the dormitory situation (brought up by
    >	Linda,) I don't have enough of the facts present to know if I can give
    >	them the benefit of the doubt.
    
    I did not ask IF you could give them the benefit of the doubt.  I asked
    HOW you could give them the benefit of the doubt, supposing you wanted
    to.  In other words, if you decided to give them the benefit of the
    doubt, what would you do?  What you believe/say/do?
    
    Also, I asked if you could give the benefit of the doubt to both the
    woman and the men involved, simultaneously.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .448  edp
    
    	> The benefit is in not taking action against a person, because there 
    	> is doubt that there is reason to.
    
    	Well, I suppose that the "benefit" can be offered on a variety of
    	levels.  A person could chose to give the "benefit of the doubt"
    	as an assumption of innocence.  (There may not always be actions
    	that one could refrain from taking against the accused person.)
    
    	> Do you always have to act as if _maybe_ the person is guilty (and 
    	> thus be suspicious) or can you act as if _you do not know_ (and thus 
    	> not act suspicious)?
    
    	It's possible, but as a friend, I would offer the "benefit of the
    	doubt" (if at all feasible) in the form of an assumption of the
    	person's innocence.
    
    	If I were the one being accused, I would only consider those who
    	were able to offer me this assumption of innocence to be my true
    	friends.  (Those who would say to me, "I am only willing to
    	suspend judgment about your guilt, meaning that I still consider
    	your innocence in doubt," would no longer be considered as much
    	my friends as those who were willing to have faith in my innocence.)
    
    	> In other words, if you decided to give them the benefit of the
    	> doubt, what would you do?  What you believe/say/do?
    
    	The only way I see that it could be possible to give the alleged
    	(or convicted) rapists the benefit of the doubt at the same time
    	as the women would be to refrain from considering the guilt of
    	the rapists (or the truth of the charges against them) at all,
    	which would work in favor of the alleged (or convicted) rapists.
    
    	If I were willing to do this, of course... 

    Re .449:
    
    I see that you deleted your note and re-entered it.  I wasn't going to
    reply, since you had acknowledged the possibility of giving the benefit
    of the doubt to both the accuser and the accused, but the change in
    your note is interesting.  Are you not very comfortable with the idea
    of giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
    
    
    				-- edp

>        After reading 1 newspaper account,  the first thing I thought was
>        it sounded like section 213.1.b of the Model Penal Code would
>        apply.
    
    
>              (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
>        defect
>              which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
>             her conduct; or
    
     What did you read that lead you to believe that she was incapable of
    rendering a competant decision to engage in sexual relations? What did
    you read that lead you to believe that the impairment was such that a
    normal person would be able to recognize this inability to make such
    decisions?
    
     All of the accounts I have read have glossed over the degree of her
    impairment (which is the crucial factor in this case IMO because in no
    account has it been indicated that the woman declined or resisted to
    participate; indeed she is alleged to have initiated it.) All of the
    reports I have read or seen have indicated that her impairment was
    "mild." Since the implication that a 213.1.b conviction is that she
    could never legally have sex with another person, I am loathe to see
    that section used unless it applies strongly; it is in effect an
    imposition on her as well. A damocles sword, if you will.
    
     The Doctah

    	RE: .450  edp
    
    	If you have questions about my actions involving a certain note,
    	do me the courtesy of asking me about it offline.
    
    	I really dislike unsolicited revelations like "AHA!!  Caught you 
    	editing again!" (with a few inuendos thrown in as to the motives
    	for it) when there is a simple explanation involved.
    
    	I removed the note to edit it for a typo.  Unfortunately, I
    	realized too late that I'd already written another note in the
    	meantime, so I had to start .449 over from scratch (since a
    	"reply/last" no longer had the same text in it.)
    
    	Having already spent a considerable amount of time composing the same
    	note earlier, I was less enthusiastic the second time around, so
    	the note came out much shorter.
    
    	Ask me about these things offline next time.

edp says:    
    	> BUT she was chastising [Diana] for NOT coming to a conclusion WITHOUT
    	> that information.
Suzanne says:    
    	When asked, "Without that information, why should we assume she
    	*didn't* want it?" - Linda replied, "Because we have the human
    	capacity to empathize."
    
    	Does that sound like chastising to you???  It doesn't to me.  It
    	sounds more like a suggestion and/or an explanation.
    
It most certainly was chastising, if only by implication!  The implication
was that "capacity to empathize" *should* yield the conclusion that the
dormitory-woman didn't want a gang-bang.  The implication was that only
a *lack* of such a capacity would lead to any other conclusion, or in fact,
not making any assumption at all.

So in essence, Linda was saying that anyone (me included) who did not
automatically assume that the gang-bang was undesired was lacking in the
capacity to empathize.

Since in generally, ability to empathize is considered "good", and an
inability (or unwillingness) to empathize is considered "bad", she was 
essentially chastising me (and anyone who agreed with me) by saying I
lacked empathy.

Frankly, I was offended.  Whether she *intended* it was offensive or
chastisement doesn't really matter.

>    	The "benefit of the doubt" is a gift - we choose to assume that some
>    	hideous accusations about another person are not true (in light of the 
>    	lack of clear evidence that the accusations *are* true.)  
 
Suzanne, you choose to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the impaired-woman
by assuming that she did *not* want a gang-bang.  Does that mean that
accusing her of wanting it is a "hideous accusation"?  I am unclear why
it is considered more "beneficial" to assume she didn't want it than that
she did.

As I understand it, it was *her* who decided to press charges, but her mother.
Clearly if it was *her*, giving her the benefit of the doubt would mean 
assuming she was telling the truth (since accusation of lying is a "hideous
accusation".)  But since she didn't, why is one assumption more "beneficial"
than the other?

Similarly with the goat example.  The fact that you assume it is more
beneficial to assume the man *doesn't* have sex with goats implies that there
is something "hideous" about having sex with goats.  (Again, if he *said*
he doesn't do goats, then the benefit of the doubt clearly means believing
him.  But in absence of that...)

Don't you think you are making a lot of value judgements in your assesment
of "beneficial"?

D!

    Re .454, D! I don't understand what is wrong with making value
    judgements.  I don't understand what is wrong with thinking that
    it is hideous for people to have sex with goats.  I, also, don't
    think it is wrong for me to think that it is hideous for a woman
    to have/or want to have sex with 4 men.  I have a right to that
    opinion, and I have a right to assume that another woman might feel
    the same way.  You have a right to disagree with me, and there is
    the possibility that I may be wrong in assuming another woman also
    thinks that sex with 4 men or a goat is hideous.  There is the
    possibility that another woman might absolutely love having sex
    with 4 men or 4 goats.  However, I still think I have a right to
    consider it hideous.
    
    Lorna
     

     Valuing differences, Lorna.
    
     It's prefectly fine for you to make value judgements for your own
    life. There is a gray area when you begin to make value judgements
    about other people's lives. Some things we can all agree on- killing
    other people is one (ok, most of us). Other things, bigamy,
    homosexuality, etc are things that we might personally be disgusted
    with, but we can't impose our beliefs on others. Like they say-
    "everything is tolerated except iontolerance."
    
     The Doctah

    	RE: .454  D!
    
    	> It most certainly was chastising, if only by implication. The 
    	> implication was that "capacity to empathize" *should* yield the 
    	> conclusion that the dormitory-woman didn't want a gang-bang.  The 
    	> implication was that only a *lack* of such a capacity would lead 
    	> to any other conclusion, or in fact, not making any assumption at all.
    
    	D!, I disagree that the simple statement about "having the capacity
    	to empathize" was an indictment of anyone who failed to empathize
    	with the woman in the dormitory in precisely the same way that the
    	author (and some of the rest of us) did.
    
    	You could probably build a nit-based case on the exact language
    	that she used in her statement, but I wonder how productive it
    	would be.  When reading between the lines of someone's note,
    	so very much of it is subjective.
    
    	> Frankly, I was offended.  Whether she *intended* it was offensive 
    	> or chastisement doesn't really matter.
    
    	Your interpretation of her innocent comment offends me, too.  So
    	I guess there is a lot of that going around.  :)
    
    	> Suzanne, you choose to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the 
    	> impaired-woman by assuming that she did *not* want a gang-bang.  
    	> Does that mean that accusing her of wanting it is a "hideous 
    	> accusation"?  I am unclear why it is considered more "beneficial" 
    	> to assume she didn't want it than that she did.
    
    	D!, I was responding to the supposed inequity assumed by another
    	noter while comparing an accusation such as "screwing baby goats"
    	with "consenting to a gang-bang in the dormitory, then charging
    	rape afterward" (in the specific discussion that Linda brought
    	up.)  The implication was that the assumption that the woman didn't 
    	want to have sex with a group of men didn't qualify as being "the 
    	benefit of the doubt" since it was only a sexual practice, and not
    	an accusation as bad as that of "screwing baby goats."
    	
    	My point was that the accusation of a false rape charge is every
    	bit as "damaging" as the accusation of "screwing baby goats," so
    	an assumption of innocence qualifies as the "benefit of the doubt."
    
    	> The fact that you assume it is more beneficial to assume the man 
    	> *doesn't* have sex with goats implies that there is something 
    	> "hideous" about having sex with goats.  (Again, if he *said*
	> he doesn't do goats, then the benefit of the doubt clearly means 
    	> believing him.  But in absence of that...)
    
    	My example about the man accused of having sex with baby goats
    	was meant to be the case where he emphatically denied that the
    	accusations were true. (Sorry if I neglected to make that clear.)
    
    	> Don't you think you are making a lot of value judgements in your 
    	> assesment of "beneficial"?
    
    	My discussion assumes that the accusations are emphatically denied
    	by the persons being accused.  I consider it "beneficial" to
    	believe that someone is telling the truth.

I know I'm going way back here, but that's 'cause I had about 50 notes to
catch up on . . .

re: .433

>417�	If her disability was severe enough to prevent her from making  
>417�	rational decisions, then it was statutory rape.
>    
>                                    
>    I have a problem with the above statement.
>    
>    This would mean that any person who was (or might be) deemed to
>    be unable to make rational decisions would be precluded from sex.
>    Because any potential partner would be taking a risk even if the
>    person asked for sex in words of one syllable.  How many of us are
>    competent to decide just who is/is not capable of making rational
>    decisions.
  
Yes, this is the legal situation -- there are people who are deemed 
sufficiently handicapped that they can never consent to sexual 
relations. 

Often these people are involuntarily sterilized.

--bonnie

>    I, also, don't
>    think it is wrong for me to think that it is hideous for a woman
>    to have/or want to have sex with 4 men.  

I disagree.  I think this is the crux of the matter, Lorna, and why your
original comments on this situation made my back arch and fur stand on
end (figuratively speaking, of course.)

You are very ready and willing to make value judgements about other
people's choice.  No, I do not think it is "hideous for a woman to
want to have sex with four men."  I don't think it is hideous for a 
man to want to have sex with goats.  (Seeing as how goats can't consent,
it probably is hideous for his to do it, but not to want to do it.)
In fact, I am *very* *very* hesitant to call someone *else's* desire
hideous.  

Which isn't to say I never do.  I think it is hideous to murder someone,
or even to want to murder someone.  But in the case of a situation where
someone wants to do something or does something that hurts no one, I can't
see that you have a right to call it hideous.  Because that word (and no,
I am not picking on that word, I have sensed this in other notes and
other words you have used) implies moral judgement.

And no, Lorna, I do *not* believe that you have the right to make a
moral judgement against a woman wanting to have sex with four men.  Or
a man wanting to have sex with a woman along with three other men.  Or
a person for wanting to do obscene things with antique lamp shades in 
a vat of strawberry jello.  Even if you don't *like* those things, even
if you think you would *die* before doing those things yourself.

I think the whole issue behind this discussion is our differing ideas
about making moral judgements about what *other* people do and want to do.
Throughout all the notes you have written about the Dirty Dancing situation,
there was an underlying tone that said "gang-bangs are *wrong*."  Not
just wrong for me, not just a good guess that it is wrong for her, not
that they are unappealing or disgusting or unlikely or anything else, but
*wrong* in a moral, ethical sense.  Bad.  Regardless of whether everyone
involved wants it or not.

And I don't think you have the right to apply that moral judgement to
someone else's decisions that do not affect you or anyone else.  

In other words, I think you are *wrong*.  As someone said earlier, "anything
will be tolerated but intolerance."

Valueing Differences, Lorna, does not mean valuing someone's right not to
value someone else differences.  

D!

    D!,  you did say "Without that (additional) information".  I can't
    really remember (the Reagan defense!) if I as answering that you
    would have empathized if you were there, or if I was thinking that 
    the information I gave was adequate, and assuming that no woman would
    want to be in that situation as I described it.  I apologize for
    offending you.  My dictionary defines
    empathy as "Identification with and understanding of another's
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    situation, feelings, and motives."  I think it does have that element
    of projection.  I have never heard any woman (except in pornographic
    fiction) speak of enjoying 6 men who are her peers and neighbors taking
    turns screwing her (=no kissing, fondling, or change in her position) 
    while others of her neighbors and peers watched.  The issue of
    fantasies that Bonnie raised is IMHO a red herring.  But I will
    suspend disbelief that such a woman doesn't exist out there somewhere.

    Anyway I thought it would be interesting to describe a situation,
    giving out information in stages, and at what point does each person
    make up their mind about the situation, and is your decision to:
    1) Join in as a participant or spectator, 2) Intercede on the woman's
    behalf (misinformed as you may be) by questioning the situation, 3)
    Walk away assuming it is none of your business:
    
    You are in your dorm room studying and hear a commotion in the hallway,
    you open your door, and another dorm resident runs by saying, "A
    bunch of guys are having sex with X."  You have seen X in some of
    your classes and in the cafeteria, but don't know her personally.
    
    You follow the crowd and come to a dorm room (not hers) with the
    door open.  X is lying on the floor and another dorm resident is
    screwing her.  Other residents are gathered around watching.
    
    You realize that other guys are lining up to take their turn.
    
    You realize that X is not moving.
    
    You realize that X has passed out.

    	RE: .459  D!
    
    	While I do see your point about wanting to value the differences
    	of women who like sex with 4 men, or anyone who desires sex with
    	baby goats, I don't see it as a compelling reason to assume that
    	someone has done such things if they claim otherwise.
    
    	In rape cases, it is far more likely that the woman is claiming
    	that it happened against her will, such that an assumption about
    	her having consented to the act would amount to an accusation
    	that she lied.
    
    	Aside from that, since it seems likely that women who enjoy sex
    	with 4 men at a time (and people who desire sex with baby goats)
    	are in the minority, the odds alone are reason enough to cast a
    	bit of doubt on the truth of accusations such as those (whether
    	or not they are being vehemently denied.)
    
    	It's not a simple matter of value judgments, D!  

    re .456, Mark, right, I understand that, and that's why I would
    never vote for a law that would make it illegal for a woman to have
    sex with 4 men, or with 4 goats.
    
    re .459, D!, I disagree with you.  I think you and I disagree about
    the difference between *opinion* and *valuing differences.*  I would
    never try to put through a law that would prevent group sex, or
    sex with animals, nor would I ever refuse to hire a person, or rent
    an apartment to a person, nor would I ever be willfully rude to
    a person because I knew they engaged in group sex or in sex with
    animals.  Therefore, I think I am abiding by the *valuing differences*
    philosophy as set forth by Digital.  However, I still believe that
    I have a right to my opinion.  Nobody can tell me that I don't have
    a right to my personal opinion as long as I don't use my opinion
    as a justification to limit another person's freedom.
    
    D! it does not anger me that you do not find gang-bangs or sex with
    goats disgusting.  I am perfectly happy to live in a world where
    you hold the opinion that these acts are not disgusting.  I don't
    think these acts should be illegal, however, I, personally, find
    them disgusting.  
    
    Lorna
    

>    1) Join in as a participant or spectator, 2) Intercede on the woman's
>    behalf (misinformed as you may be) by questioning the situation, 3)
>    Walk away assuming it is none of your business:

Well, the situation doesn't work for me, because I would probably choose
3) right away, and never enter the room in the first place, or pursue the
issue enough to seek out the situation.  But assuming for some reason I
happen to be *passing* by the room in question, or for some other reason
I am there...

>    You realize that X is not moving.

Here I question whether 1) she is alive, 2) she is consensual, and 
3) she is concious.  The "question" would probably involve looking at
her closely, speaking to her, asking the spectators if they could 
describe how this came to be, etc.  Upon doing so I would discover that...

>    You realize that X has passed out.

(BTW, by your scenario, how would I "realize" that unless I took an 
active stance of looking for that information.)

Having discovered that, I would attempt to stop the situation by 
whatever means seemed most appropriate...physically removing the men,
calling the Resident Associate, calling the police, or whatever.

I have a problem with your phrasing, and what appears to be a misinterpretation
of what I have said:

>2) Intercede on the woman's
>    behalf (misinformed as you may be) by questioning the situation

"Questioning" is not wrong or misinformed.  Nor is it intervention.  I
would not *intercede* until the *last* part of the scenario described above.
I would *question* (either to myself, with my actions, or verbally) long
before that.   (In fact, I would probably "question", to the extent that
I would wonder if it was *truly* consensual when I first heard about the
incident.)  I havenever suggested that it was wrong to pursue the
possibility that a gang-bang is non-consensual.  In fact, given the
high probability (as everyone has pointed out) that she doesn't want it,
it might even be considered wrong *not* to consider the possibility that
she doesn't want it.

To give a real life example:
There was one time in college that I heard the girl in the room next to me
yelling and carrying on quite loudly, and I wandered over there to see
if she needed help.  (The door was ajar.)  I knocked and got no answer,
but the noise continued, so I peeked in.  The girl was in there with two
boys on her bed, all in partial states of undress, and she was responding
loudly to their touches.  I couldn't tell if the response was positive or
negative though, so I cleared my throat, and they all looked up...

So you see, I do *question*.  But I didn't assume one way or another.  I
didn't barge in and "defend her".  But because the situation seemed a little
fishy though, I also didn't ignore her.  Because it didn't seem *likely*
that the noises were positive.  So I am not suggesting that one assume
*anything*!

(Oh, you want to know what happened?  It's really not relevent, you know.
The point was that I made no assumptions, but still acted on likelihoods.
Whatever it turned, I did what I thought was best.  But to appease your
curiosity, what happened after I looked in was that they all looked terribly
embarassed, and the guys looked awfully *guilty*, and she said "Don't
worry, I'm okay, we'll be quieter, sorry."  Apparantly she knew right off
why I was there, which made me feel better.  I found out later that one of
the boys was her boyfriend, so clearly this situation is not like the one
Linda described, but the point remains.)

There have been a few times *I* have been in that situation, especially
at parties.  Once, I was doing something that *really* didn't look consensual.
An aquaintence pushed my partner out of the way and said "You okay?  You 
need help?"  I assured him I didn't.  I was not upset, I thought his
behavior was appropriate given the information he had, and he left us alone
once I said we were alright.  Another time I *wasn't* alright, and someone
said "Do you need help?" and I said *yes*.  And he helped.  And I was very,
very grateful.  You *can* do the right thing without making assumptions.

D!

    D, Lorna has illuminated the "valuing differences" principle exactly in
    her .462:  there is NOTHING wrong with making value judgements, it's
    part of the human condition.  The difference comes when, as Lorna says,
    someones tries to translate their personal values into law.  Then the
    ground is *much* shakier, and issues of individual -vs- societal rights
    come into play.
    
    						=maggie

Suzzane,
>    	baby goats, I don't see it as a compelling reason to assume that
>    	someone has done such things if they claim otherwise.
 
I didn't say it was.  In fact, I said explicitly that giving the benefit
of the doubt involves assuming people are tellingthe truth.  Where are
you getting this?
    
>    	It's not a simple matter of value judgments, D!  

I was responding to Lorna's value judgement, when she said sex with four
men was "hideous".  He statement *was* a simple matter of value judgements.

Lorna,   
>    I have a right to my opinion.  Nobody can tell me that I don't have
>    a right to my personal opinion as long as I don't use my opinion
>    as a justification to limit another person's freedom.
 
The ways in which a moral judgement can limit other people's freedom
is not limited to simply *laws*.  Moral judgements are pervasive and
subtle in the way they affect the lives of those you are judging.
For instance, take the "benefit of the doubt" issue.  Say that you feel
X is *wrong* and *immoral*.  Say that A is accused of doing X.  (A has
not responded to the accusations, or you don't know A's response, or whatever.)
Say that you take Suzanne's advice that we should give A the benefit of
the doubt.  to *you* the benefit of the doubt would mean assuming that
A hasn't done something *wrong*, therefore A hasn't done X.  But the
"beneficialness" of that assumption rests on X's wrongness.  If you hadn't
thought of X as wrong to begin with, then giving A the "benefit of the
doubt" wouldn't yield any assumptions at all.  What results is a bias
on your part against the idea that A actually did X.  (A may not
consider X to be wrong, and might not be happy to know that you assume
s/he didn't do X just because *you* think it is wrong.)

In other words, your judgements about right and wrong will affect your
assumptions and actions regarding other people, even if you are not
actively discriminating *against* people who do those things.
   
>    D! it does not anger me that you do not find gang-bangs or sex with
>    goats disgusting.  

Whoa, hold on just a second here!!

first, There is difference between "wrong" and "disgusting".  I can be
repulsed by something without thinking it is *bad*.  As I said in another
note, I used to think menses were disgusting, but I certainly didn't think
they were wrong.  I think the removal of vericose veins is disgusting -
I saw a show about it on TV once and I almost threw-up!  But clearly, such
removal is not *bad*.  I think eating eggplant is disgusting; I think
brushing your teeth with baking soda is disgusting.  It think going to
Friday the 13th Part N is disgusting.  But not *wrong*.

Secondly, why is it that people (not just you) automatically assume that
*defending* something means that I do that thing myself, or like it, or
whatever.  Being pro-equal rights doesn't make you black or a woman or
homsexual.  Advocating tolerance doesn't mean I participate in gang bangs
or like the idea of sex with animals.  (Doesn't mean I *don't*, either.
This is not a disclaimer.)

This is a disclaimer: I think sex with animals is disgusting.  If I
ever saw it happen, I would most certainly turn away, get nauseous, etc.
I would never *do* it.  But I don't think it is ethically wrong to want
to.  (Actually that is debateably, given the inability of animals to
consent, but you get my point.)

D!

>Well, the situation doesn't work for me, because I would probably choose
>3) right away, and never enter the room in the first place, or pursue the
>issue enough to seek out the situation.  
	That was one of the points of the question, how much information
    	does it take for you to form an idea about the situation, and
    	based on that idea what would you do.
    
>"Questioning" is not wrong or misinformed.  Nor is it intervention...
> In fact, given the
>high probability (as everyone has pointed out) that she doesn't want it,
>it might even be considered wrong *not* to consider the possibility that
>she doesn't want it.
    	That is all I was trying to say in my original foray into this
    discussion!  To an extent, when one takes action, one is acting
    on an assumption, or more accurately one is acting on a theory.
    I suppose it was a mistake for me to answer the question you posed
    of "Why should we assume" without rephrasing it.  (Do all these
    discussions end up with semantics?)
    
    	The thing that bothered me about the original situation as I
    described it was that not one of the male participants *questioned* the
    consensuality of the situation enough to intercede, or they didn't
    care if it was consensual or not.  Which showed to me a big gap
    in understanding between me (a women) and the participants (some men) 
    as to what women want, or a big gap about what is acceptable treatment 
    of another human being.

Personally, I find sex with goats disgusting unless:

1)  There is only one goat.
2)  The goat is sober and in full posession of its facilities
including hooves and goat breath.
3)  The goat does not insist on playing any videos.
4)  It is consentual and the goat is over 20 goat year old.

NOW, IS THIS POSITION IMMORAL, ILLEGAL OR JUST PLAIN FATTENING???

;-)

PS:  Whatever floats your goat is fine with me.

 re: .466

> (Do all these discussions end up with semantics?)

No, but you have to get through the semantics -- making sure you're all 
talking about the same thing, using the same terms to mean the same things --
before you can get on to discussing the real issues.  I had missed your
point about nobody even questioning what was happening.  

re: .465

>The ways in which a moral judgement can limit other people's freedom
>is not limited to simply *laws*.  Moral judgements are pervasive and
>subtle in the way they affect the lives of those you are judging.

This is an important point.  When Kat was a baby, nobody told me 
it was illegal to have a child out of wedlock.  But plenty of them
took time to let me know that it was wrong -- wrong of me to have had
sex in the first place, wrong of me to have kept her as if I were
a decent woman.  I seem to recall the words "disgusting how few morals
you young people have" from an older relative.

It didn't make my life any easier, let me tell you.

Now she had a right to think that, and say that, but I wish she had
thought twice before she said it, and been a little more charitable 
about it.

--bonnie

     Linda-
    
     The point that was made (and debated and ratholed) about your initial
    recounting of the story was that you did not tell us that the sex was
    nonconsentual but expected us to come to the conclusion that it was
    wrong on basis of our ability to empathise. And if we were sitting
    around talking, you'd find that alot of people would have indeed
    assumed it was nonconsentual by interpreting the nuances of the way you
    told the story- your facial features, your tone of voice, particular
    adjectives you used etc. However, with the written medium, our gut
    level responses end up being replaced by a more careful examination of
    the facts and a more accurate assessment- for several reasons. We are
    able to go back and read the facts as many times as we like. We lose
    many of the nuances of how you tell the story (though we tend to
    imagine your voice when we read it). And finally, because our responses
    are more or less permanent, the serve to demonstrate alot about us. And
    that can be a demonstration of "jumping to conclusions," "reacting
    emotionally," "reacting logically," "showing careful judgement," or any
    other number of things. Since a vital piece of information was missing
    (though hinted at due to the context IMO), making the assumption which
    you wanted us to make would not have shown a propensity to logical
    analysis (which is why, I believe, the backlash started).
    
     That said, let us examine the whole scenario (as now described).
    
     If for whatever reason I decided to "follow the crowd" to the dorm
    room in question and became a spectator (rather unlikely but within the
    realm of possibility), I would have certainly noticed if the woman was
    passed out. I think my initial reaction would be to stop the act, by
    utilizing verbal methods. Should that fail to produce results, an
    attempot to physically restrain the participants would have ensued. If
    this also failed, I would just leave (and get the authorities ASAP).
    This is how I'd handle things.
    
     I would have an extremely difficult time ever being able to respect
    the participants or the spectators again, regardless of my opinions of
    the woman in question. Such an act displays a baseness of behavior, a
    recklessness and complete disregard for the rights of others that I
    begin to see red. I will never understand why people do things like
    that. I'd better stop now...
    
     The Doctah

I'd feel awfully powerless and scared.  I mean, what if they decided ot
start on me next?  What can I do about a large group like that?

I admit it, I'd worry about getting myself out first.  Then, if I could
do so safely, I'd probably call some kind of authorities -- the dorm
resident or campus police.  

But I might be too scared of retribution to do even that.  

--bonnie

>         -< It has been an awful long time since I was that age, but >-
    
     Well, it's only been a few years for me. :-)
    
>    I don't believe that your reactions are the reactions of the typical
>    college age boy.
    
     Maybe not. I never could see why people would do things that they KNEW
    would hurt others, but it still remains a prett popular pastime. :-(
    
     Thankfully, I have never been in such a situation, so maybe this is
    "sitting behind the terminal thinking."
    
     The Doctah

    	RE: .465  D!
    
    	> Say that you take Suzanne's advice that we should give A the 
    	> benefit of the doubt.  
    
    	It wasn't my advice.  I wrote notes defending the right of someone
    	else to suggest that "the benefit of the doubt" be given, but I
    	wasn't part of the original discussion about whether the "benefit
    	of the doubt" *should* be given or not.
    
    	> But the "beneficialness" of that assumption rests on X's wrongness. 
    	> If you hadn't thought of X as wrong to begin with, then giving A the 
    	> "benefit of the doubt" wouldn't yield any assumptions at all.  
    
    	You're ready WAY too much into giving someone the benefit of the
    	doubt.
    
    	Let me give you another example.  If someone told me that a co-worker
    	was gay - now hear me out and read this carefully! - I would refrain
    	from assuming that the person is actually gay (and would give the
    	person the benefit of the doubt that s/he is not.)  Keep reading,
    	and don't extract this until you find out why, ok?
    
    	It's definitely *NOT* that I think there is anything wrong wih being
    	gay!  It's just that I *do* think people are entitled to their
    	privacy, so unless the person came up and told me him/herself that
    	s/he is gay, I can't assume that the person wanted me to know her/his
    	sexuality EITHER WAY!!!  So the person's PRIVACY would get the benefit
    	of the doubt (without implying AT ALL that I personally think it's
    	bad or wrong to be gay.)
    
    	How would I say this to make it clear to the person telling me this
    	information - well, I don't always CLUE EVERYONE IN when I give
    	the benefit of the doubt, first off.  If I did say something, it
    	would probably be along the lines of how X is a nice person, and
    	there is certainly nothing wrong or bad about being gay, but that
    	I'd wait to hear about X's private life when s/he decided to tell
    	me him/herself.
    
    	Giving the benefit of the doubt is not always a gift for the
    	reason of considering the information negative.  Therefore, giving
    	the benefit of the doubt does not creat a bias against a behavior
    	that causes someone to give the benefit of the doubt.
    
    	>>D! it does not anger me that you do not find gang-bangs or sex with
	>>goats disgusting.  

	> Whoa, hold on just a second here!!
    
    	D!, please refrain from quoting two people's notes in the same reply
    	without accurately identifying the author of each quote, ok?  (One
    	could assume that I wrote the above, based on your having addressed
    	the note to me, and as you know, it was written by someone else.)
    
    	Thanks.

>    	You're ready WAY too much into giving someone the benefit of the
>    	doubt.
 
No I'm not.  Would you not agree that *if* you considered X to be bad,
and *if* you were giving someone the benefit of the doubt, that you
would, indeed, assume that they had *not* done X?

Anyway, that example was intended for Lorna, and not in response to
your "benefit of the doubt" discussion. (Your comment that giving the
benefit of the doubt mean assuming they were telling the truth, rather
than assuming they hadn't done something satisfied me and I saw no need
to continue the discussion, since we were in agreement.)

I wasn't implying that *your* discussion of "benefit of the doubt" involved
moral judgement.  It was just a handy example of a type of situation where
*if* someone was making moral judgements, how those judgements would affect
their perceptions and actions.

>    	D!, please refrain from quoting two people's notes in the same reply
>    	without accurately identifying the author of each quote, ok?  

Suzanne, please go back and read my note.  The part where I was responding
to you, I started with "Suzanne, ...".  The part where I was responding to
Lorna I started with "Lorna, ...".  I thought having those two words 
adequately explained the quotes and my responses.

>(One
>    	could assume that I wrote the above, based on your having addressed
>    	the note to me, and as you know, it was written by someone else.)
 
I addressed the first half of thenote to you, and the second half to Lorna.

D! 

    	RE: .474 D!
    
    	>> You're ready WAY too much into giving someone the benefit of the
	>> doubt.
 
	> No I'm not.  Would you not agree that *if* you considered X to be 
    	> bad, and *if* you were giving someone the benefit of the doubt, that
    	> you would, indeed, assume that they had *not* done X?
    
    	The benefit of the doubt assumes the kindest perception of the
    	situation, and the most realistic, usually.
    
    	It is usually "kindest" to refrain from believing everything that
    	gets spread around about someone else, especially if the behaviors
    	being discussed have any sort of negative connotation in our culture,
    	whether we personally find the behaviors "bad/wrong" or not.
    
    	A person could find nothing at all wrong with screwing baby goats (and 
    	might practice goat-romance him/herself,) but could *still* offer the
    	benefit of the doubt to someone else accused of it (for the fact of
    	the rarity of people who do this sort of thing, if nothing else.)
    
    	More than anything else, I see the benefit of the doubt as a guard
    	of someone else's privacy (by refraining to believe what others
    	have said about the person in the absence of corroboration from
    	the individual and/or furthur evidence.)
    
    	> The part where I was responding to you, I started with "Suzanne, ..."
    	> The part where I was responding to Lorna I started with "Lorna, ..."
    	> I thought having those two words adequately explained the quotes 
    	> and my responses.
    
    	Obviously, I thought those two words were inadequate, or I wouldn't
    	have brought it up.  (Right?) 
    
    	Next time, try dividing your note into sections that reference both
    	a reply number and a name:
    
    		RE: .xxx Ms. X
                    then
    		RE: .xxx Ms. Y

    Re .449:
    
    > 	The only way I see that it could be possible to give the alleged
    >	(or convicted) rapists the benefit of the doubt at the same time
    >	as the women would be to refrain from considering the guilt of
    >	the rapists (or the truth of the charges against them) at all,
    >	which would work in favor of the alleged (or convicted) rapists.

    And if they are not guilty, there is nothing wrong with something
    working in their favor -- that's the point of giving them the benefit
    of the doubt.
    
    > 	If I were willing to do this, of course... 

    How willing are you to give accused rapists (in any given situation)
    the benefit of the doubt?
    
    
    				-- edp

>    	The benefit of the doubt assumes the kindest perception of the
>    	situation, and the most realistic, usually.
 
[...]
>    	More than anything else, I see the benefit of the doubt as a guard
>    	of someone else's privacy (by refraining to believe what others
>    	have said about the person in the absence of corroboration from
>    	the individual and/or furthur evidence.)
 
But that isn't the point and isn't what I asked.  Regardless of what *other*
situations would *also* make you doubt what you had heard, but you not consider
it "giving the benefit of the doubt" to *not* believe it if someone tells you
A did X, *if* you consider X is bad?

This example *really* had nothing to do with *all* that constitutes 
"beneficial".  It was just one example of one situation where one type of
"benefit" and "doubt" exist.  There are others.  I don't care.
    
>    	Obviously, I thought those two words were inadequate, or I wouldn't
>    	have brought it up.  (Right?) 
 
Right.  However, I still think they were adequate.  Oh well, c'est la vie,
and all that.

D!

    	RE: .476  edp
    
    	> And if they are not guilty, there is nothing wrong with something
    	> working in their favor -- that's the point of giving them the benefit
    	> of the doubt.
    
    	No one on the outside of a legal case is required to offer the gift
    	of the benefit of the doubt, though.
    
    	> How willing are you to give accused rapists (in any given situation)
    	> the benefit of the doubt?
    
    	As an outsider to the personal or legal situation involved, I'm
    	not often willing to give this particular gift.
    
    	In no way am I *obligated* to give this gift unless I choose to do
    	so voluntarily (as an outsider.)  

          re: .452 (Mark Levesque)
          
          >>  After reading 1 newspaper account, the first thing I thought
          >>  was it sounded like section 213.1.b of the Model Penal Code
          >>  would apply.
          
          >>      (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
          >>          defect which renders her incapable of appraising the
          >>          nature of her conduct; or
          
          >    What did you read that lead you to believe that she was
          >    incapable of rendering a competant decision to engage in
          >    sexual relations?
          
          The way the mental condition was described made it seem as though
          she was in a condition (at the time of the alleged rape) where
          her mental facilities were definitely and seriously affected as
          the result of some accident.
          
          >  What did you read that lead you to believe that the impairment
          >  was such that a normal person would be able to recognize this
          >  inability to make such decisions?
          
          They described her as "retarded".  I am able to sense when a
          person I encounter could be retarded.  Spending a few moments
          with that person, and a answer is usually obvious.  If she was
          indeed "retarded" as the media described her, I think it would
          have been apparent.
          
          
          Mark, I never said Section 213.1.b _should_ have been applied in
          this case.  I merely said that my first thought upon hearing of a
          rape case with a retarded woman was that section 213.1.b _would_
          be applicable.   Applicable, as in, that would be the part of the
          law (if MA did indeed adopt that part of the Model Penal Code)
          that the lawyers would be arguing about.  Section 213.1.b  would
          be the point of contention - whether her impairment was of
          sufficient degree, whether the men knew of her impairment, etc...
          Yet, you reacted to my reply as though I was saying 213.1.b
          should definitely have been used to convict the men.
          
                                                            nancy b.
          

>          They described her as "retarded".  I am able to sense when a
>          person I encounter could be retarded.  Spending a few moments
>          with that person, and a answer is usually obvious.  If she was
>          indeed "retarded" as the media described her, I think it would
>          have been apparent.
    
     Ok- this begs the question, "How are you able to determine when a
    person is retarded to the degree where you must override their apparent
    wishes because you deem them to be unqualified to make such decisions?"
    
>          Mark, I never said Section 213.1.b _should_ have been applied in
>          this case.  I merely said that my first thought upon hearing of a
>          rape case with a retarded woman was that section 213.1.b _would_
>          be applicable.
    
     I guess I don't see the difference. To me, if someone says "I believe
    the law against crime n is applicable in this situation," I take that
    to mean that they believe a crime has been committed. In the case of
    serious crime, one presumes that such a statement indictates a belief
    that said crime ought to be prosecuted using the applicable law. Since
    the idea of speaking about an activity in terms of being in violation
    of a certain statute generally occurs as a belief that the offending
    party has indeed violated the statute, one would tend to believe that
    you would expect the offending party to be convicted of violating the
    statute (otherwise why bring it up?)
    
     Now you are saying that you thought the statute would be applicable in
    this case. Do you continue to hold this view? If you do, would it be
    unreasonable to believe that you would expect the offending parties to
    be convicted of violating said statute in a court of law? 
    
     I guess I'm confused by your assetion that the section would be
    applicable but that you did not necessarily think it should be applied.
    Do you or don't you think it should be applied? Why or why not?
    
     The Doctah

    
    re:525.408
    
>    I think it is unethical for a more powerful person to have sex with 
>    a less powerful person.
    
>>     That is pretty all encompassing. Every sexual union must be forged on
>>    equal power or it is unethical?
    
    yes.
    

>>     That is pretty all encompassing. Every sexual union must be forged on
>>    equal power or it is unethical?
    
>    yes.
    
     Well, excuse me if I think that's just a bit ridiculous. Now I'm sure
    that you have never personally had sex with anyone who is smaller than
    you, weaker than you, less intelligent than you, less musically
    inclined, etc etc ad nauseum, right? I find that practically impossible
    to believe. 
    
     The Doctah
    
    ps- I also assume that you've never had sex with anyone who had a
    higher BAC than you, right? In fact, they were always exactly the same,
    right? Neato!
    

    We may need a definition of power in this specific context.

    re: .484, Yes, unfortunately...
    
    We apparently do need to define what is meant by "power".  What's being
    done is a reducto ad absurdum (I think) (for the Logic 101 buffs like
    me).  ANY argument can be made ridiculous.
    
    Obviously what is meant by "there should not be a power imbalance" is
    that one person should not have AND USE an obvious advantage over
    another person.  Does this definition seem reasonable?
    
    In other words, 
    
    o  Your boss should not be allowed to coerce you into sex, using
    influence or threats to do so.
     
    o  A stronger person should not coerce a physically weaker person into
    sex, using strength or threats to do so.
    
    o  A person should not knowingly use or dupe a mentally handicapped
    person into sex, using manipulation or threats to do so.
    
    Pam

>    We apparently do need to define what is meant by "power".  What's being
>    done is a reducto ad absurdum (I think) (for the Logic 101 buffs like
>    me).  ANY argument can be made ridiculous.
 
Yes.  Reductio ad absurdum - proving an argument is invalid by applying the
same logic to a different but true set of premises and yielding a false
conclusion. That does appear to be what is happening.  And it is a valid
way of disproving an argument.  And it isn't true that it works on *any*
argument, only on invalid ones.  (Talk about Logic 101 buffs!)

Anyway, this isn't a lesson in logic.  Wht I am trying to say is that you
can't dismiss extremes but use the same logic in non extreme cases.  If
it is as simple as Joe White says, that it is *always* unethical to have
sex with someone with a power imbalance, (whatever the definition of power)
then it has to work in *all* cases, or the statement is incorrect, and
must be modified so that it is only applied to those cases where it works.
(Such as "...when a large [however that is defined] power imbalance exists"
or "...when the imblance in power is used to influence one of the persons.".)
   
>    Obviously what is meant by "there should not be a power imbalance" is
>    that one person should not have AND USE an obvious advantage over
>    another person.  Does this definition seem reasonable?

It does, but it is not obvious that that is "what is meant".  In fact, I
said this quite a while back, that it wasn't the imbalance in power but the
*use* of that power that makes it unethical.  The Doctah agreed with me (I
think) and Joe *disagreed* with him.  Joe thinks it is "simple" and has not
modified the clause to include the bit about "use".

Should we define "power"?  I don't think it is necessary.  Do we all agree
that, for instance, a boss has power over an employee?  Alright, if we do,
then what about the situation where the boss and the employee are in love,
and have been for quite some time, perhaps even since before they were boss
and employee.  Maybe Mary is a secretary to Harry, and Jane was dating Mary.
Then Harry quits, and Jane gets moved into his job.  According to this
theory, Jane and Mary should stop having sex.

I disagree that it would be *unethical* for them to continue having sex.
If you disagree, then we have a case of "irreconcilable differences" and
I think there is no further need to discuss this.

(BTW, lots of arguments can be made that Mary should quit or Jane should
quit or whatever...but even having sex *once*, while the situation is being
resolved, is considered unethical.)

D!

If it is as simple as Joe White says, that it is *always* unethical to have
sex with someone with a power imbalance, (whatever the definition of power)
then it has to work in *all* cases, or the statement is incorrect, and
must be modified so that it is only applied to those cases where it works.
    
    >so far, it works in all cases as far as i know.
    
I said this quite a while back, that it wasn't the imbalance in power but the
*use* of that power that makes it unethical.  The Doctah agreed with me (I
think) and Joe *disagreed* with him.
    
    >i do not know to which exchange you are referring.

Should we define "power"?  I don't think it is necessary.  Do we all agree
that, for instance, a boss has power over an employee?  Alright, if we do,
then what about the situation where the boss and the employee are in love,
and have been for quite some time, perhaps even since before they were boss
and employee....
    
    >i guess i must refine the definition of power to mean the power
    >within the relationship; 'personal' power, if you will. 
    

Joe:
    
    >i guess i must refine the definition of power to mean the power
    >within the relationship; 'personal' power, if you will. 
    
That's different.  And interesting.  I think it is *closer* to something
I would agree with, but not yet.

I think of marriages where the husband is "in charge".  he makes the 
money and decides how it is spent, when in disagreement his decision
prevails, etc.  This doesn't seem all that unusual.  I wouldn't be 
caught dead in such a relationship, I doubt many women here would.  But
some women have been raised to feel that that is their pride and duty in
life; they *want* it, they are happy with that, would be unhappy 
without it.

Would you agree this situation constitutes "personal power"?

I think the man and wife described above should be allowed to have sex if 
they wish.

Also, when you start talking about "personal power" things get a little
fuzzy.  How much personal power is inherent, and how much is willful and
voluntary?  Does your statement still hold if the imbalance in power
arises from informed consent and decision on the part of both people, who
were equals when the decision was made (eg: the marriage described above,
and, of course, any sex involving dominance and submission)?  

Also, you still haven't anwered the question others have posed.  What
about physical power?  That seems as personal as you can get.  That is the
only power (maybe intelligence too) that exists in bed, between two people,
the rest of the world forgotten for the moment.  Two people together, body
to body, alone, in a private world for a short amount of time - and
the stronger person, and the more intelligent person, has a very real, very
defineable and very personal power over the other person.

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

Back in my younger days, when I found alcohol necessary for sex (and a 
number of other things) I would often be with a guy, decide ahead of time
I wanted to sleep with him, discuss it with him, and *then* get drunk.
At the time sex occured, he had "personal power" over me.  But I don't
think he was doing anything unethical.  (granted, I was doing something
incredibly damaging to myself through my dependence on alcohol, etc, but
I made the decision to do so with full capacity to make decisions.)  Was
he wrong?

D!

    
    	RE: .489  Mike Z.
    
    	> We don't need a defintion of absurd radical extremism.
	> We've got examples.
    
    	We've also got plenty of examples of the malicious use of convenient
    	stereotypes, so we can do without another.  
    

    
re:.488
        
That's different.  And interesting.  I think it is *closer* to something
I would agree with, but not yet.

I think of marriages where the husband is "in charge".  he makes the 
money and decides how it is spent, when in disagreement his decision
prevails, etc.  This doesn't seem all that unusual.  I wouldn't be 
caught dead in such a relationship, I doubt many women here would.  But
some women have been raised to feel that that is their pride and duty in
life; they *want* it, they are happy with that, would be unhappy 
without it.

Would you agree this situation constitutes "personal power"?

> yes

I think the man and wife described above should be allowed to have sex if 
they wish.

> i wouldn't 'allow' or 'disallow' at all. as for it being immoral, i
> think it probably is. 

Also, when you start talking about "personal power" things get a little
fuzzy.  How much personal power is inherent, and how much is willful and
voluntary? 

> i don't really understand what you mean.

Does your statement still hold if the imbalance in power
arises from informed consent and decision on the part of both people, who
were equals when the decision was made (eg: the marriage described above,
and, of course, any sex involving dominance and submission)?  

> if, at some time, there truly was equal power and a subsequent decision
> to distribute power unequally, that strikes me as an odd, but not immoral
> choice. i note that you now say that the marriage described above
> started with both partners having equal power, this was not apparent from
> the original case; in fact, one would be tempted to assume just the
> opposite. if that was the case then i merely think them (in this case)
> foolish (and the man, in particular, kind of slimy).

Also, you still haven't answered the question others have posed.

> so what? is that required? ;^)

What
about physical power?  That seems as personal as you can get.  That is the
only power (maybe intelligence too) that exists in bed, between two people,
the rest of the world forgotten for the moment.  Two people together, body
to body, alone, in a private world for a short amount of time - and
the stronger person, and the more intelligent person, has a very real, very
defineable and very personal power over the other person.

> this strikes me as an extremely narrow construing of the dynamics of
> interpersonal/sexual relations.
------------------

Back in my younger days, when I found alcohol necessary for sex (and a 
number of other things) I would often be with a guy, decide ahead of time
I wanted to sleep with him, discuss it with him, and *then* get drunk.
At the time sex occured, he had "personal power" over me.  But I don't
think he was doing anything unethical.  (granted, I was doing something
incredibly damaging to myself through my dependence on alcohol, etc, but
I made the decision to do so with full capacity to make decisions.)  Was
he wrong?

> probably; but for the reason that he was a collaborator in your admittedly
> self-destructive behaviour. it seems to me, from what you've written
> that the 'power relation' between you was basically equal.

    
    	RE: .494  Mike Z.
    
    	It was a label, that's all.
    
    	As you have amply demonstrated, attaching a negative label to the
    	actions of another person does not require anything more than an 
    	opinion.
    

    
    	RE: .484  Dorian
    
    	> We may need a definition of power in this specific context.
    
    	A more than reasonable request at this point...
    

    A person's 'power' is not a constant (within or without a
    relationship.) There are times when I feel strong and in
    control, there are times when I feel small and helpless
    and need to be held (Yes, all 200+ macho pounds of me.)
    
    In the latter case, would it be unethical of some woman
    to make love to me ? (Sounds of hysterical laughter)
    
    If two people are in a relationship, and their 'power' is 
    fluctuating up and down, should they refrain from making
    love except when their power levels are exactly equal ?
    The species wouldn't reproduce ! 

    If the relationship is worth a damn, the people involved
    will recognize their strengths and weaknesses and refrain
    from taking advantage of them.     

    oops .498 should read "recognize *each others'* strengths
    and weaknesses..."

    I think the whole "power" issue is simple:  if you don't feel okay
    saying no to _this_ person, right _now_...then there's a power
    imbalance.   Could be economic, emotional, physical, whatever, doesn't
    matter, the result is the same.  The other person has you over a
    barrel whether they know it or not and whether they would chose it or
    not.  If they _did_ choose it and/or _do_ know it, then going thru with
    sex is an abuse of the power.  
    
    I think this might be what Joe is trying to get at.
    
    						=maggie

I tend to agree with the position that it's always unethical to have a
sexual relationship between two people when one person has a lot of 
power over the other one.  Yes, the dynamics of the relationship will
vary a lot over the years, sometimes by the choice of the partners and
sometimes from power struggles, but when the person on the bottom isn't
fully able to refuse the suggestions of the person on top, even if the 
person on top never explicitly uses or threatens to use that power, just
isn't right.  I wouldn't go so far as to say it's rape, but it's wrong.

Sometimes even in existing healthy relationships, power can be abused.  
For instance, .483 mentioned not having sex with your wife when she has
a broken arm.  Well, if she didn't want to have sex, and her husband 
went ahead and pushed her down and took advantage of her weakness, yes,
that would be wrong, and it might even be rape, depending on how 
strongly she felt about it. 

Yes, I think the traditional man-in-charge marriage is unethical.

--bonnie 

    
    re:.500,.501
    yes; this is the sort of thing i had in mind.
    

me:
I think the man and wife described above should be allowed to have sex if 
they wish.

Joe:
> i wouldn't 'allow' or 'disallow' at all. as for it being immoral, i
> think it probably is. 

I meant "allow" in the context of an ethical system.  ie: allow = considered
"morally permissible" by the ethical system in question.  I didn't mean
"allow" as in physically preventing or allowing someone to do something,
or even legally preventing or allowing someone to do something.  Just
ethically since that what we are discussing.

Anyway...

>>Also, when you start talking about "personal power" things get a little
>>fuzzy.  How much personal power is inherent, and how much is willful and
>>voluntary? 

> i don't really understand what you mean.

I mean that it becomes unclear how much the power imbalance has to do with
"absolute" power, and how much has to do with power someone has allowed
the other person to have.  Like, if someone knows something very private
about me, they have power over me (ie; if they wanted to they could blackmail
me, or use it to hurt me.)  If they found out about it by chancing to see
it, or hearing it from a friend, or whatever, then I have not voluntarily
given them that power.  But if I *tell* them this, then they still have the
same power, but I have entrusted them with it, voluntarily, and therefore I
don't think such power would make relations in such a situation unethical.
It seems to me there are many situations where one person choose to let
themselves be in a vulnerable position to another, whether through telling
them intimate things, letting that person support them financially, or
whatever.

> this strikes me as an extremely narrow construing of the dynamics of
> interpersonal/sexual relations.

I don't think so. I think it means looking at one aspect of it, and discussing
that one aspect as *well* as other aspects, in an effort to get a feel for
the whole system.  Physical strength is one (perhaps small) aspect and type
of personal power one person may hold over another.  I think if your ethical
system doesn't apply to this aspect, then it is flawed, and must be modified
to exclude it.

At any rate, I think what we have come down to here is a difference in
personal morality.  You think certain situations are unethical that I do
*not* think are unethical.  I think your ethical system is flawed.  you
think mine is flawed.  I think we have both presented our viewpoints
adequately clearly that the other person *understands* it.  If the other
person doesn't agree, there is nothing more to be done, except either
fight it out, or agree to disagree.  I choose the latter...

D!

    
    
    D!,
    
    If I choose to make myself vulnerable (I think that's how you phrased
    it) with you by telling you some secret about myself, I don't think
    that makes me have less power than you.  Now if you actually threatened
    to tell my secret unless I went along with your wishes, and if I was
    afraid and went along with you because I was afraid, I would say that
    *that* would constitute your having power over me.
    
    I guess the scenarios I had in mind, though, when I raised this issue
    of power imbalances, were much less coercive.  I think Maggie got at 
    the heart of it.  If one person feels unable to say no, then I think
    there's a power imbalance.  Maybe I can't say no because the person has
    a gun.  But maybe it's because s/he's my professor or my boss.  Or
    maybe it's because s/he's an adult, and I'm a child.  These are some
    of the relationships that I had in mind where there could be power
    imbalances.
    
    D!, I think that in most of the counter examples you give, one person
    willingly gives (some kind of) power to the other.  I think that's
    different from a situation where one person has more power than another
    by virtue of her/his position in society.  
    
    Justine
    

    
    re:.503
    
re: the use of the word 'allow'. 
	i understand; i was being legalistic; sorry for the static.

re: 'absolute' power.
	in the examples you have given there always seems to be
	explicit the idea of giving or sharing power voluntarily.
	to me, that implies that the people involved at least
	began with equal power. these situations do not strike me
	as immoral (see justine's .504).

re: 'physical' power in the bedroom.
	in your earlier reply you suggest this was the *only* power
	involved in a sexually intimate relationship. i think that's
	too narrow. you now say it's 'one (perhaps small) aspect'.
	i quite agree. if physical power is only one aspect of the
	total picture of power interplay, it may be possible that
	some other aspect of power evens out what might otherwise
	be an imbalance.

	i'm sure you are aware of feminist theorists who, even more 
	extreme than my poor self, posit that sexual relations between 
	men and women are by definition unequal power relationships.

re: flawed ethical systems.
	actually, i think our systems are remarkably alike. we are
	both terribly conscious of the role of power in interpersonal
	relationships. we both agree in the rights of people to make
	their own choices, even odd choices. we both agree in the
	wrongness of people forcing themselves, personally or morally,
	on another. the only point of contention i see is a certain
	vague misunderstanding on what constitutes the reasonable
	and fair exchange of power. perhaps, even here, it is a
	gender-related item. being a semi-conscious male, it is all
	to clear to me how easy it is for me to take and abuse power.
	perhaps to a woman, it is more important to boldly claim and
	assert that ability. it is a claim that i respect and admire.

>> i think you'd *like* my legal system

I dunno if I'd like your legal system, Joe, but I like your ideas . . . and
your notes persona.

--bonnie

    
    re:.507
    how kind! thank you!
    

One small note of clarification (as I said, I am not trying to convince you
of something now.)

>	in your earlier reply you suggest this was the *only* power
>	involved in a sexually intimate relationship. i think that's
>	too narrow. you now say it's 'one (perhaps small) aspect'.

I think you misunderstood me.

In my earlier reply, I meant it is the only power that is absolute, not
dependent on other places, other people, other times.  It is the only
one (I did qualify it with the addition of intelligence) that exists
totally independent of the outside world, and directly relates to
sexual relations.  (On second thought, I might add the power of parent
over child.)

Things like employee/boss relationships, or teacher/student, or finanacial
supporter/supportee are all basically artificial creations of society, and
only have meaning when you take the "outside world" into account.  Therefore
they are less "personal" (it was when you brought up "personal" that I
mentioned this) than those power relationships that exist just within a
person and between two people, and involve no one and nothing else.
Abilities which are absolute (like strength) as opposed to situational
abilities (like being a teacher or manager) seem, to me, to be the epitome
of *personal* power.

Moreover, there is more voluntariness about those non-absolute type 
of powers.  That is, while it is certainly unethical for a boss to insist
on sexual relations with an employee, because it is an externally imposed
power, the employee voluntarily accepted the job, and can *end* the nature
of the managers power over him and her by leaving the job.  (Obviously
this still isn't the 100% voluntary necessary to call it "consensual", just
"more" voluntary - I believe in degrees of voluntariness.)  But you can't
volunteer to be weaker than some one, nor in most cases (esp. with
a large man and small woman) can you make a decision to choose to *end*
that power imbalance.  Therefore it seems to me very *personal*, as in,
relates directly to the *people* themselves, who they are, as opposed
to the situation they are in.

When I later stated that physical strength was one small aspect of a sexual
relationship, I wasn';t contradicting myself, because the first time I wasn't
referring to an "intimate relationship" in general, just to the specific
act of sex, without regarding the outside context.  Obviously an outside
context *does* exist as part of an "intimate relationship", and therefore 
many other factors come into play.

>	i'm sure you are aware of feminist theorists who, even more 
>	extreme than my poor self, posit that sexual relations between 
>	men and women are by definition unequal power relationships.

I am.  And I'll bet you can imagine my reactions to such "posits".  :-)

D!

    re:.509
    
yes, i misunderstood you. thanks for the clarification. i accept
your distinction between 'personal' and 'outside' power. i note that
you add the idea of power between parent and child; i wonder if there
aren't others? also, in discussing the ultimate 'voluntariness' of the
'outside' situations (leaving the employ of the offending boss, for
example), it seems apropos to note that, in real life, that kind of
flexibility is often not an option. the 'outside' power problem
of employment becomes a 'personal' power problem of starving.

>One small note of clarification (as I said, I am not trying to convince you
>of something now.)

amazing; carry on a discussion and ideas mold and expand, carry on an
arguement and ideas contract and atrophy.

>i note that
>you add the idea of power between parent and child; i wonder if there
>aren't others? 

"Inherent powers?"  There might be.  Those were the only one's I could come
up with.  It seemed to me that most powers in the world are "assigned" by
society, and in a different society, or a different world, that power
imbalance wouldn't exist.  On thinking about it, some other possibilities
appear to be: when one person is in love with the other, and not vice
versa...when one person has past experience with similar situations, and
the other person is ignorant...and, obviously, when one person has a weapon
or some such.  (This sort of falls into the same category as "physically
stronger"...)

>also, in discussing the ultimate 'voluntariness' of the
>'outside' situations (leaving the employ of the offending boss, for
>example), it seems apropos to note that, in real life, that kind of
>flexibility is often not an option. 

Of course.  That is why I pointed out that the situation still doesn't
qualify as "consensual" because it isn't always possible or good for
an employee to quit or whatever.  I suppose I measure degrees of voluntariness
by the *number* and *feasibility* of the choices available to the person
of lesser power.  That is, in a situation where someone holds a gun to
another person's head and says "Have sex with me or die", the person-with-
less-power has exactly *two* choices, therefore a *very* low level of
voluntariness.  I can't say exactly how many or how feasible the choices
have to be to make it a level of voluntariness to qualify it as "consensual"
(to me, consensual == ethical).  Perhaps where to draw that line is where
you and I differ.

>amazing; carry on a discussion and ideas mold and expand, carry on an
>arguement and ideas contract and atrophy.

:-)  Surprise!

D!

    
    Hi y'all,
    
    I don't know if this is an ongoing discussion however I have just
    completed reading this note as well as 99.* and 961.* and I have
    a few questions and comments.  I may have missed something here
    but I did not see any notes which indicated a desire for revenge
    against the perpatrator of a rape.  I have seen notes which indicate
    a clear desire for justice and for public condemnation of the rapist
    however none which indicate a desire for pure revenge.  A woman
    once asked me what I would do if I were sexually assaulted by a
    man or group of men and survived the attack.  My reply was that
    I would not report the crime and that I would plan and execute 
    revenge.  She found my attitude to be barbaric and said so.  What
    do the women and men of this conference think of the question of
    revenge?
    
    Another note I read spoke of a woman who attempted to use self
    defense against a rapist, was overpowered and was surprised at
    how ineffective the self defense techniques were.  This is not
    completly surprising since most self defense is dependent on
    size and weight.  However when I was in college I attempted to teach 
    a rape defense class to some of the women in my dorm and I found
    a surprisingly niave attitude about combat.  I think that television
    and movies can give a false sense of what combat and rape are all
    about.  Specifically the women in my class wanted to learn moves
    and blows which would allow them to escape unharmed without severly
    injuring the attacker.  They were surprised when I told them that
    such techniques do not exist.  The techniques I attempted to teach
    were designed specifically to blind, deafen, maim and kill the
    opponent.  I felt that only such techniques would deter a rapist.
    I also taught them that a fight only lasts 15-20 seconds before
    you win or loose so you must maximize the damage you do in the
    shortest period of time.  Of 15 students 12 dropped out after the
    introduction and the other three expressed doubt about thier 
    ability to carry out the moves, not thier strength or speed but
    thier will to do this sort of damage to another human being.  How do
    you feel about self defense in rape?  Do you have the right to kill, 
    blind or maim your opponent?
    
    Also many notes seem to dance around when no means no.  Well no
    allways means no.  I allways asked the women I dated what they
    wanted to do on a date including if they wanted to have sex with
    me, if they said no then no it was.  If they said "ask me later"
    I would usually reply "No, it would be better if you asked me later."
    Sex between men and women is not all that important for a good
    releationship, fun yes! but important? No!.  Simply being straight
    with people avoids all chance of misreading a situation.
    
    
    

re.512

sure, I wanted revenge.  I dreamed of it. I immersed myself in walking through
more and more gruesome scenarios of retribution.  I even planned a couple down
to the very last detail.  It was wonderfully therapeutic and vastly empowering
to know that I _could_ avenge myself.

but I never acted on it.  ultimately, vengeance has no place in my life.

It happened.  I hate and despise the man.  I will probably rejoice shamelessly
when he dies.

  Ann

          Recently I read a book called
          
                                "Her Wits About Her"
                        Self-Defense Success Stories by Women
          
          It describes real-life accounts of how women from all walks of
          life have successfully defended themselves.  Strategies employed
          includes everything from negotiation to weapons.
          
          On the back cover it says it offers the "empowering message that
          women can fight back, and do so effectively."  I think many women
          would be inspired by reading this book (although I felt jealous
          and resentful, but that's my prob).
          
          
          re: 525.512 (Harry Arendt)      -< Revenge? >-
          
          > ...but I did not see any notes which indicated a desire for
          > revenge against the perpatrator of a rape. [...] What do the
          > women and men of this conference think of the question of
          > revenge?
          
          The idea doesn't really do much for me.  I got some satisfaction
          thinking about how reparation payments could be used as a type of
          revenge-from-a-distance, but I didn't act on it.  And if He got
          AIDS while in prison, I wouldn't be upset about it.  Reading the
          book above spurred some fantasies about what might have happened
          (how hurt He would have been) if I had won,  but then I just get
          bummed because that's not what happened.  If I've ever thought
          about active revenge, I can't recall it.
          
          > I also taught them that a fight only lasts 15-20 seconds before
          > you win or loose so ...
          
          Or less than that.  I think if your first defensive then
          offensive maneuver fails, well... you're f*cked.
          
                                                            nancy b.