Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I've only known one male who was accused of raping a woman personally. I was
dating him at the time. It was high school (goddess, I haven't thought about
this in ages).

He blamed it on the drugs. He said she only called it rape after the fact for
some reason having something to do with her father.

Given my statistical sample of one, it looks like rapists never think of it as
rape, and always have a reason.

So, it would help if this guy had been socialized to consider forced sex (or
coerced sex) as rape, socialized to always be responsible for his actions (even
under the influence), socialized to respect women and humans, and the
difficulty being one.


	Mez

    Mez,
    
    It does seem to me that some men today don't look at coerced sex
    as rape. 
    
    I really wonder why it is that somemen do feel that they have to
    coerce to get sex.
    
    I'm not talking about the sort of rapist here who is acting out of
    some sort of rage or hatred against women, who attacks women on
    the street in a car etc. Rather the sort of man who is capable of
    a loving relationship, and who can be a warm friend so some people,
    but still sees no harm in coerced sex.
    
    It is something I cannot understand.
    
    Bonnie

>    I really wonder why it is that somemen do feel that they have to
>    coerce to get sex.

 Maybe they do?

 The Doctah

Probably offensive, alas. Feel free to skip
    
    
    
        There's an old (not terribly funny) joke to the effect that 
    the difference between seduction and rape is salesmanship. 
    Maybe what these men are doing is justifying coercion as the 
    'hard sell' ? Between the 'winning ain't everything, it's the 
    only thing' philosophy and the 'Playboy /if you don't score
    you ain't sh*t' philosophy, men are more concerned with 'making
    their numbers' than with the quality of their lives. Including
    their sex lives. 

    By the way, if any one would like to answer this question anonymously
    please feel free to write one of the modeators. All anonymous mail
    is kept in complete confidence.
    
    Bonnie J
    comod

	 Attitudes about sex have to change.  Many men I have known
	 see it as a conquest.  They see it for the physical
	 gratification it can give them.  What they don't understand
	 is that they can give themselves that physical gratification.

	 It's also a power struggle.  The struggle to get the other
	 person to "let loose."

	 Everywhere around us we're taught that sex is okay.  The MAIN
	 place I find this teaching is in music.  In the music that
	 each and every one of us, AND our kids listen to.
	 Especially Top40/Dance/Rap music.  Sex and "getting it" is
	 glorified.  People are conditioned to believe that it's
	 something to "obtain."  People believe when they go out on a
	 date with someone they are physically attracted to, that they
	 "want it" from this other person.

	 Even our fantasies are filled with sex.  We don't much
	 fantasize about skiing the Alps or deep sea fishing, we
	 fantasize about romance and sex.

	 Children are taught that it's "wrong" and "bad" for them to
	 have sex.  It's talked about as if it's a "dirty"
	 thing....but to them?  They find that a challenge!
	 
	 For rape to be a lesser threat, we need to put all these
	 signals into perspective.  Sex is something between two
	 consenting people.  It's a sharing, it's NOT a "getting."

	 When society realizes that sex is so much gratifying if it's
	 consensual and unselfish, THEN the rape threat will lessen.
	 And I DON'T see this happening anytime soon.

	 kath

    The latest issue of _Indiana_Alumni_, the alumni publication for my
    college, reports the findings of a study performed by Richard McFall, a
    psychology professor there.  The study involved prisoners at the U.S.
    Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.  What they found was that
    "rapists are less able than other violent and non-violent prisoners to
    interpret emotional signals given by women."  The article reports:

        After watching more than 75 30-second video clips of couples on a
        first date and in intimate situations, the prisoners were asked to
        identify moods for the males and females in the clips from several
        alternatives:  romantic, positive, neutral, negative, and bad.

        Rapists were significantly less accurate than violent non-rapists
        and non-violent subjects at reading female cues in first-date
        situations.  Sexually violent men were particularly poor at reading
        a woman's negative cue.  All groups scored equally in rating the
        moods of women in the intimate scenes.  McFall attributes the
        difference to the fact that couples communicate their feelings
        ambiguously during first dates but are more explicit in intimate
        situations.

        Because they don't interpret the cues accurately, men sometimes
        don't realize that a rape occurred.  Decoding problems often occur
        when the rape involved an acquaintance.  But not all rapists are
        victims of misunderstanding.  Many sexually violent men know
        exactly what they are doing, says McFall.

    The study was published in the February, 1987 issue of the Journal of
    Consulting and Clinical Psychology.  It was re-released in conjunction
    with Rape Awareness Week held at the Bloomington campus in September.

    Not to say that all rapists are rabid misogynist, but perhaps they
    were less able to correctly clue in on a woman's negative response
    because rape isn't a (recite, recite) a crime of lust, it's a crime
    of violence/humilation.  If a man feels the desire to humilate a
    woman, then pehaps he does not see them in the same light a "regular"
    guy would--therefore, he would be less inclined to think a woman
    really means no ("You know those women--they want it anyway, or
    get what they deserve") when she says no.  Or even care what she
    means.  Or look for the signals.  
    
    Has it been studied at all if rapists generally think little of
    women as a whole?  They must feel *some* animosity towards women.
    
    ---kim

    re: .7
    
    hmmm...many sexually violent men know exactly what they are doing,
    huh?.
    
    I guess to them it's power and control.  Violence is power over the
    powerless.  Perhaps rape is even more fun for them because it's so
    intrusive, so dynamic, so overpoweringly lifechanging.
    
    I wonder if there's some way to topple or alter their need for power
    over people, or redirect it, or heal that need so it no longer compels
    them to harm others.  
    
    I have read that rape is not an act of sex, it is an act of violence,
    and of anger.  Perhaps the men who rape are angry for some reason, or
    they resent the women who have been in their lives (misogyny *again* -
    what a recurring theme!).  
    
    I wonder if there is some way to stop a date rape that is about to
    occur (as it becomes obvious to the woman)....something that could be
    said or done.  Not that it was her fault (nor is it *ever* her fault), 
    but just that it may be a slightly more avertible disaster than
    stranger-rape.
    
    -Jody
    

    I want to emphasize what Jody wrote, that rape is not an act of sex. 
    Rape is violence against women.  Case in point, around the time that
    the stockbroker/jogger was brutually attacked in NYC a girl (? age 13
    or so) who has Downs Syndrome was repeatedly raped by a gang of boys and
    they used a baseball bat.
    
    So "scoring" at whatever cost has nothing to do with the quality of a
    man's sex life, it has everything to do with hatred of women acted out
    via violence/rape.
    
    Laura
    

Kath>We don't much
Kath>	 fantasize about skiing the Alps or deep sea fishing, we
Kath>	 fantasize about romance and sex.

 I fantasize about "deep sea fishing." I also fantasize about sex, sometimes
at the same time. :-) (There's something erotic about marlin. :-)

Laura>    So "scoring" at whatever cost has nothing to do with the quality of a
Laura>    man's sex life, it has everything to do with hatred of women acted out
Laura>    via violence/rape.

 Nonsense. "Scoring" is exactly what everyone tells you you should do. Turn on
the TV- commercials bombard you with sex. TV shows bombard you with sex. Even
kid shows have shocking amounts of innuendo in them. Turn off the TV and turn
on the radio. The vast majority of top 40 hits have sex as a central theme or
an underlying one. Read a book- how many fiction books for adults have no sex
involved? Not that many. Go out to play with your friends. All they talk about
is who did what to whom, which girls do and which don't, did _you_ score with
what's her face the other night, and, by the way, what's the score of the game?

 Our entire society has a fixation on sex. It is inescapable. The peer pressure,
especially for boys, is irrefutable and is an extremely powerful force. Boys
don't have sex with girls because they're hate them; they have sex with them
because it is "the thing to do," it feels good, it validates them with the
rest of the crowd, and gives them a feeling of power "I got her to do *that*
willingly."

 So while there are plenty of sick puppies out there, it is not only inaccurate
to state that "scoring has everything to do with hatred of women," it is also
insulting to the vast majority of us who NEVER rape.

 The Doctah

I've seen several assertions made here, repeatedly, over the years:

	Rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of sex.  The rapist is
	acting out of hatred, not out of "lust".

	"No" means "no".  Inducing a woman to engage in sex against her
	will is rape (even when the coercion is so subtle that it may
	not be immediately apparent as coercion to either party at the
	time).

Now, I accept both of these assertions implicitly (with some qualms about
the parenthesized portion of the second one).  But I'm not convinced that
they are talking about the same thing.

That is, it may be important to emphasize that "date rape" *is* rape; but
is it really a crime of violence, not of sex, motivated by hatred toward
the victim (or all women)?

Or are there really two different kinds of rape -- "date rape", a sexual
crime perpetrated by a man who is after sex, and won't take "no" for an 
answer, and "violent rape", a crime of violence perpretrated by a man who
wants to hurt a woman?

	-Neil

>       <<< Note 958.12 by MOIRA::FAIMAN "light upon the figured leaf" >>>

>That is, it may be important to emphasize that "date rape" *is* rape; but
>is it really a crime of violence, not of sex, motivated by hatred toward
>the victim (or all women)?

	 It all depends.  It can only be taken on a case-by-case
	 basis.  Some date rape scenarios are crimes of passion,
	 others are crimes violence.  All are crimes of domination and
	 power.
	 

	 I can't say "date rape is a crime of violence", but I also
	 can't say it isn't.  One thing I can say is that they are
	 rarely recognized in a court of law.

	 kath

    My feeling is that if we want to reach men who 'date rape' i.e.
    men who force sex on women with whom they are involved in a dating
    situation, then we will miss many of them if we say that it is
    only a crime of violence by men who hate women. If a man has forced
    a woman in any way, but doesn't hate women, but has bought into
    the current media image of sex and it's availablity, then he won't
    listen to that. He will say that he doesn't hate women, that
    he loves certain women and what he did was only what 'all guys do'
    not rape.
    
    I think men who force women to have sex by any means are not only
    wrong but that they have no idea of the damage they do. Also I think
    that they miss so much in terms of what true intimacy and consentual
    sex can be. But to say that they are the same as a man who brutally
    attacks a woman on the street is to not only cloud the issue but
    to totally fail to reach such a man and show him why what he is doing
    has done is wrong.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I think it is a combination of factors; both the anger at women,
    the societal messages about the desirabilty of sex, as the Doctah,
    pointed out, plus traditional "machismo" messages men receive
    as male cultural brain-washing; i.e. the real man takes what he
    wants, also the old role of man as hunter/conqueror. Also, the
    acceptability of violence as a solution to one's problems.
    
    There is an old saying to the effect that anger is fear projected 
    outward, and it may be that these are men who have been hurt by
    women, and fear suffering the pain once again. I speak of
    emotional pain rather than physical pain; it might derive from
    their upbringing; they may have an abusive mother, for instance,
    or come out of some other dysfunctional family situation. Mike's
    article points out that these men routinely misinterpet signals from
    women, which would indicate that they were not in the life situation
    to develop the skill in the first place. Perhaps there were no healthy
    male-female relationships modeled in their lives to learn from.
    
    A guess, anyways......
    
    I don't really differentiate between date rape and other rape. They
    both represent anger, and it is just the degree of blatantcy that
    separates them.
    
    I don't believe that rape will end any sooner than any other violent
    crime in our society. The best solution to reduce it, IMHO, is to 
    talk about it, and maximize communication between men and women in
    a healthy, loving manner, and also to build the level of social
    ostracism involved for those that perpetrate.
    
    -roger
     
    

	 RE: .14 (Bonnie)

	 One key point that your reply brings up is that many men that
	 do "date rape" don't realize that they are "raping."  Rape is
	 so often defined as being thrown to the ground in a dark
	 alley and brutally violated by some drunk.  When, in fact, a
	 very large percentage of rapes go unacknowledged because they
	 are not identified as such.

	 I would wager to say that any woman who has led an active sex
	 life of some sort with multiple partners has most likely been
	 "raped" at some point in her life.  Though, many times we
	 OURSELVES do not recognize it as rape because we, too, are
	 conditioned to think of it in the brutal/dark alley/drunk
	 scenario.  In fact, I'm just now beginning to realize date
	 rape for what it is and to recognize it.

	 Many times we simply accept the rape as our fault, or condemn
	 ourselves for dating the guy and letting it get to that
	 point.  But it's NOT a woman's fault.  No means NO!  Pushing
	 a person away means NO!  Fighting means NO!  Kicking means
	 NO! In one of my rapes I was physically overcome by a man who
	 thought No meant Yes.  I struggled and hit him and repeatedly
	 said "No" but he just laughed and said he knew I wanted it.
	 He barely penetrated when I kicked him in the balls and
	 pushed him off me and ran out.  Would you believe that to
	 this day, he finds nothing wrong with what he did.  To this
	 day he says to be "Why can't we be friends?"  Because you
	 f*in' raped me.  But I'm scared to say that to him, because
	 he won't understand.  His conditioning does not ALLOW to him
	 understand that *he* *raped* *me*.

	 So, I truly do believe that an understanding of what rape
	 REALLY IS is what is needed.  Many people, both men and
	 women, have NO IDEA!  And I really think this topic is a good
	 place to start to bring the definition out into the open so
	 we can really examine what rape REALLY is and confront it and
	 deal with it.

	 If I say "No", it's rape.


	 kath

    
    re:.14
    
    i think i understand what you're saying and i'm willing to go along
    with it as a *tactic*. but for those of us 'in the know', i really
    don't think it's clouding the issue to realise that the same mindset,
    however rationalized or disguised, is present in all rapes, 'date'
    or otherwise, and in many dealings of men with women in our society
    that might not include intimate physical contact.
    

    
    I agree that when you say no and mean it, it's rape.  However, what
    about when you say no and mean it;  then with a little persuation,
    (called seduction by some), you change your mind?  I don't think that
    is rape.  I think that sometimes this is what date rapists are hoping
    for.  If I'm right, then perhaps the way society approaches sex is
    wrong.  Men, especially, are trained that women don't always mean no
    when they say it and women can change their minds.  One date I can
    remember from high school, the guy didn't realize I was serious until I
    punched him.  When he realized I meant "no", he took me home and was very
    apologetic.  Also girls sometimes are solely concerned with keeping
    their virginity.  So, they can do everything but actual intercourse and 
    still be virgins.  To a guy, this must be very confusing.  Everything is
    going well;  the girl is enjoying herself;  then all of a sudden, she says
    "no"!  Between society's conditioning and the situation, I can see
    where a guy would think that "she really wants it".  I am not saying
    that makes it the girls fault.  I am saying that society has placed men
    and women in certain sex roles and that those roles may contribute to
    the date rape problem.  (women defend their virginity while men try to
    persuade them to give it up.)
    
    Rachael
    

    Re. 18
    
    You make a good point.  In some circumstances, there is a thin,
    very tenuous line between rape, and not rape.  Another scenario
    to consider is being approached by your lover, not *really* feeling
    "in the mood", not *really* wanting to do anything, but going ahead
    anyway, just because you don't feel like arguing, etc.  Is THAT
    rape?  I say no.  
    
    Not all rapes are in dark alleys by thugs, but not all no's are
    always really NO's, if you follow.  There's some shady territory
    here.
    
    ---kim

    I have this vision, call me idealistic, call me a dreamer, but I have
    this vision that someday, somehow, as sexual advances are progressing,
    and the woman says NO.  The man listens the first time.  And stops. 
    And they talk about it - where the NO came from and how they both feel.  
    And mutually decide whether to continue or not.
    
    Crazy, huh?
    
    -Jody

.20> not all no's are always really NO's, if you follow.  

From societal conditioning, men are being given the decision-making
rationale as to whether she really *does* mean no or not.  It's not
the woman's decision.  Heck, she could really be wanting it and just
too shy to say so!  And then it's not rape!  So go ahead, those-men-
who-can't-take-no-for-an-answer, pursue it and keep pushing your sex 
on women.  If one says no, and you say yes, she may really mean yes
too.  Of course if she doesn't, it's not your fault, because *some*
women really do mean yes when they say no.  And if she's too scared
or intimidated for whatever reason to say no, spit in his face, kick
him in the balls and scratch his eyes out, I'm being told that's not 
rape either!  Wonderful!

So what I'm hearing is that the word NO is not enough.

Carla

>	 I would wager to say that any woman who has led an active sex
>	 life of some sort with multiple partners has most likely been
>	 "raped" at some point in her life.

You'd loose that bet.  You didn't get "our" fantasies right, either.

As long as we train girls to never say yes, and boys to always get to
yes, there will be some confusion which boys, in their determination
to get to yes, will willingly exploit.  
    
If females are free to say yes, males will be more likely to accept a 
no as a no and not as a maybe by a willing but well-trained female.  
Believing in the right to say yes is very empowering for a woman when she 
wants to say no.  
    
Well-trained women often do display the ambivalence men use as a
rationalization for furthering their own agendae, though I'd still define 
that as rape.  Often, men see it as normal.  Since they know most women in
our culture can't/don't easily say yes, it is, in their minds, their
responsibiltiy to control things if sex is ever going to take place.

    I'm beginning to think rape will need to be categorized like murder.
    There are 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree varieties. liesl

    Well maybe, technically, it's not rape if the woman has given
    in to coercion or blackmail or simply to get the guy off her
    case, but it sure as h*ll, *feels* like rape.
    
    maia
    

>             <<< Note 958.21 by LEZAH::BOBBITT "invictus maneo" >>>

>    I have this vision, call me idealistic, call me a dreamer, but I have
>    this vision that someday, somehow, as sexual advances are progressing,
>    and the woman says NO.  The man listens the first time.  And stops. 
>    And they talk about it - where the NO came from and how they both feel.  
>    And mutually decide whether to continue or not.


	 And on the converse, I can't count how many times I've heard
	 locker room talk that went, "I can't believe he said NO!
	 Then he got mad at me when I tried to seduce him! Can you
	 believe it?!  Guys ALWAYS want sex, he must not like me,
	 huh?"


	 Some women need to learn how to accept the word "No", too.
	 Society conditions BOTH sides of the fence.


	 kath

    In re: Note 958.23 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI 
    
    I think that is a key part of the problem for some men, though I 
    have never been unable to take "no" for an answer myself.
    
    It used to be that most men "knew" that "good girls don't do it." I
    think there are still some(?) / plenty of(?) men who "know" that 
    "good girls don't admit they want to do it," and feel compelled to say
    "no" whatever they feel. Whether consciously or not, these men discount 
    the significance of a woman's "no."
    
    I don't suggest this justifies the subsequent behavior, but it may help
    in understanding the odd assumption. Kath's example makes clear that
    some women have their own "double standard." When we all shake a bit
    freer of these, we can strive for what Jody describes in .21.
    
    		- Bruce

	RE: .24  (Liesl Kolbe)

	>    I'm beginning to think rape will need to be categorized like murder.
	>    There are 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree varieties. liesl

	It already is...

						nancy b.

    961.* is the new string dedicated to the discussion of the definition
    of rap.  Please continue there.
    
    						=maggie

    re .22
    
    No, you are not hearing, at least from me, that no is not enough.
    
    (and yes, I am getting tired of typing the word "no"  :)
    
    ---kim

    Please move all definitional discussion to 961.*
    
    						=maggie

    There was a brief interview this morning on WBUR (Morning Edition) with
    a man named Jackson Katz (sp?), founder of an organization called 
    Real Men. Its purpose is to reduce all forms (verbal as well as
    physical) of male violence against women. They are having a March this
    coming Sunday in Boston (I didn't catch just when and where); a kind of
    counterpoint to the Superbowl. He claimed that 4 women a day are
    murdered in the U.S. by their husbands or boyfriends.
    
    		- Bruce

    I think it's interesting and very telling that this string, titled,
    "The Rapists" has relatively little discussion about the rapists.
    Notes trail off into discussions of the definition of rape, of
    the victims, etc.  Joe White tried a little bit to get into the
    midset of a rapist, saying it was similar to the mindset of the
    man who steals kisses, both showing no respect for the wishes of
    the woman and both assuming she has or deserves no dignity and no
    veto power.  But he was quickly browbeaten, (keyboard beaten?), into
    a retreat.
    
    I wonder if this parallels something else I've always noticed and
    that is when you're discussing discrimination you can discuss
    everything about it except the discriminators.  Not just in notes,
    but even in the media, the focus is always on the definition, (did
    it take place or not?), or on the minorities, (the victims), but
    never on the ones doing the discriminating.
    
    Is that what's going on here?  Have we women become sufficiently
    silenced that we cannot speculate, (yes, speculate - screw the facts,
    this is an emotional issue and we can learn from other women's
    *feelings* just as much as from book facts)?  Have we been
    successfullly warned not to speculate about the various mindsets of 
    various men with regards to various levels of consent in sex?
    
    Many women who have been raped have been successfully intimidated
    into silence and the resultant belief that they themselves are somehow
    at fault, (because good girls don't get raped), or at the very least,
    their situation is unique and has no bearing on or relevance to
    the cultural mindset of the American male.  Perhaps we need an FWO
    to successfully explore this because I am pretty certain that if
    a woman were to speculate here about the cultural conditions that
    predispose "normal" men to rape, (the most common rapists), a male
    would come in demanding facts to back it up, or demanding she stop
    "generalizing", stop "tarring all men with the same brush", etc.
    I'm not sure which of the rape strings discussed the violence of 
    football, (combined with sex via cheerleaders), as indicative of 
    the level of acceptance our culture has with mixing sex and violence,
    but whichever string it was, the connection was quickly trivialized,
    oversimplified, (I watched the whole game and didn't feel like raping 
    anyone), and dismissed.
    
    The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.  Women speculating
    are not women accusing men, they are women protecting women.  And
    if men just happen to be what we need protection from, it's unfortunate
    that the more egalitarian men of the noting community have to read
    that in black and white here but it is STILL in our best interests to 
    help each other recognize potentially dangerous situations, potentially 
    insidious cultural influences, and potentially hazardous results of our 
    own, often innocent behaviors.
    
    If some men feel personally persecuted by women who are trying to make 
    sense of and protect themselves from the very real dangers males DO pose
    to them, they can do much in the way of offering real insights,
    real assistance and real perspective.  But they can't do it by
    attempting to shelve communication between women.  They can do it
    by their behaviors toward the women in their own lives.  Many of
    these same women will bring those experiences to discussions like
    these and help teach us all that not ALL men are hazardous to our
    health.  Educating your own women by your example will prove the
    point in a far better way than an attempt to discredit, invalidate
    or shout down the ideas and speculations that women MUST engage
    in and WILL engage in to protect themselves.  I'm sure every male
    would want his daughter to do everything possible to protect herself
    against rape.  Discussions with other women, like this one, about
    the mindsets of rapists, the cultural influences on them, etc, is
    probably the number one most important way.  Silence among women
    is over.  Facts about rapists are still relatively sketchy and skewed
    due to the cultural bias against "ruining men's lives" by such an
    accusation.  So speculation, sharing of feelings and experiences,
    beliefs and sure, real hard facts when we have them, are all we
    have.  Everyone knows women's part in rape.  The victim has been
    discussed ad nauseum.  But since most rapes occur in a woman's own
    home by someone she knows, taking apart the victim is both a waste
    of time and a deflection from the real issue - the rapist.  It's
    time the rapist was picked apart. Discussion has to start somewhere
    and where better than from women, most of whom know far, far more
    about male attitudes toward sex than any single man does.
    

 It's an interesting observation that the rapists themselves have not been 
analyzed in any depth here. I'm sure that part of the reason is that speculation
on what motivates men to rape would be challenged. I think that a larger
reason is that few of us have had any (known) contact with rapists; thus
any speculation about what motivates them would be entirely a guess and
completely unverifiable. I suppose there is value in the brainstorming activity
such an endeavor would entail, but it seems to me that what would be missing
is the feedback. It would be like bowling through a curtain. You wouldn't know 
if you hit any pins or not. So the utility of such an exercise is limited IMO.

 If, on the other hand, we had some men who were rapists and were able to give
some feedback on the speculation "Yes, that's how I felt" or "No, that wasn't
it; I felt like this..." it would be entirely different. However, given the
stigma attached to rapists, I do not expect men to be beating down the
proverbial door to tell us why they did what they did (or perhaps do what
they do).

 That is the missing ingredient: feedback. Are we on the right track, or are we 
just blowing smoke?

 The Doctah

    re:                     <<< Note 958.33 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
    
�                                         the cultural conditions that
�    predispose "normal" men to rape, (the most common rapists),      
    
    
We live in a society, in a world, where might makes right.

Our institutions and leaders every day violate international
law, flout constitutional law, ignore civil rights,
debase human dignity.  Our every system is based on 
perceived differences:  haves/have-nots, black/white,
christian/jew, northerner/southerner,  pro-life/pro-choice,
woman/man.

I don't think it's possible to eliminate rape in a society
where power is the only morality and the prevailing slogan
is "hooray for our side."
    
    /bruce
    

>    Perhaps we need an FWO
>    to successfully explore this because I am pretty certain that if
>    a woman were to speculate here about the cultural conditions that
>    predispose "normal" men to rape, (the most common rapists), a male
>    would come in demanding facts to back it up, or demanding she stop
>    "generalizing", stop "tarring all men with the same brush", etc.

    Sandy, there is *nothing* about that thought that says it can only
    come from a mind in a male body, nor is there anything that makes
    only males' fingers capable of typing it in.  Let's face it, we're
    dealing with an awfully controversial topic here, and some people
    (male and female) are bound to reach a discomfort level that makes
    them say "hey, back off".

    The notion that "only women could understand this" is too connected
    with the thought that "women are incapable of understanding XYZ."
    Don't say it!  It's not true!

>    I'm not sure which of the rape strings discussed the violence of
>    football, (combined with sex via cheerleaders), as indicative of
>    the level of acceptance our culture has with mixing sex and violence,
>    but whichever string it was, the connection was quickly trivialized,
>    oversimplified, (I watched the whole game and didn't feel like raping
>    anyone), and dismissed.

    Perhaps that's the topic to discuss: why can't we feel comfortable
    discussing these connections?  I'll venture a guess: because it would
    mean that all of us, as members of a society where such things are
    omnipresent, were *complicit*, *guilty*.  And "no, not me" is the natural
    reflex to being accused.  In other words, it's easier to say "the victim
    caused it" than "_we_ caused it".  

	Sharon

    I tried.  It felt really alien to try and think this way.  I'm probalby
    way off base.  I'll make as many disclaimers as I possibly can.  It's
    full of swears and not for the squeamish.  But I think it's important
    to talk about the other side of the situation, as Sandy said (thank
    you, Sandy).  So I tried.  And here it is.  (can you tell I'm nervous
    about posting this?)
    
    -Jody
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------


It's really not for the faint of heart....


---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
Filthy bitch.
God I need it bad, need a power hit.
Fuckin' humorous, ain't it, I'm the ultimate consumer.

    Hell, if she only understood what I need, if she weren't so fuckin'
    uppity, I wouldn't have to go out tonight.  But nah.  She don't
    understand.  I'll make her understand.  I'll get through to her, dumb
    bitch.

    Watch her walkin'.  Little mouse, whistling in the dark.  Tight skirt.
    Nice ass.  Need it bad.  Hope she's not a screamer.  There's something
    about seeing 'em struggle that gets me off.  It's like driving a
    fucking Porsche sometimes, just another turn and shift and I'm in total
    control. Yeah, I'm fucking cruising.

    Ooh, baby.  Did I scare you?  Good.  Lousy no-good bitch.  Can't think
    for yourself.  Can't take care of yourself.  Serves you right for
    wearing that skirt.  For being out tonight.  For being a woman.  Why'd
    you get made so weak, if it wasn't for me.  You take care of me good. 
    I got what you want. Oh, the power.  It's singin' in my ears.  My
    blood's up, it's hot, I'm on you, all over like fucking glue, like the
    stench of the streets.  You're never gonna get clean.  I'm gonna take
    you.  All of you.  Forever.  Dumb fucking bitch.  Don't you beg, just
    shut your mouth.  Just lie there and get taken.  Just give it to me. 
    Good girl.  Stop struggling.  Lie there with that fucking dumb cow
    expression on your face.  Did it hurt?  Hey, it's my fucking
    birthright.  Women are the bearers of pain, the keepers of  men, they
    think they can pick when to put out and when to hold off - think they
    can tell us men what to fucking do, how to fucking live, like she does?
    I'll learn 'em.  I'll learn 'em all.

    I hear footsteps.  Gotta go.  Oh, that was good.  I'm in control.  God
    I hate women.  I hate needing them.  I hate wanting them.  I hate it
    when she won't listen to me.  Fuck 'em all......Someday......

set mode/minor -- very minor - snit
I've talked about the man who raped me in other strings speculating and also
recounting his own take on the issue, but if _here_ is where it belongs in order
to be heard, then here it is ...
re-set/default

First, _he_ says it wasn't rape [BFD]

However, a listing of things he said to _me_ includes:

  _you_ NEVER laugh at ME!!!
    [I thought the _suggestion_ was ludicrous, not the man...but he maintained
     that there was no difference]
  if then, why not now, Bitch?!
  you've never had BETTER and you never WILL!!!!
  you have no RIGHT ...
  who are YOU to complain...

He told his lawyer that you can't rape a woman you've already had and anyway, he
just 'saw red'

He told police that you can't rape a whore ... apparently living with him 
started the process, and I hadn't been celibate since he moved out. 

So, yes, he did say a _bit_ about why it happened.  My inferrences can be found
elsewhere, but basically I believe that what he said indicates a mindset that
places Woman as a class of chattel slightly less valuable and certainly less
replaceable than a good dog.

  Ann

    
    
    	Jody, did you just think that up or what?
    
    	That was intense.  
    
    	2 sentences rang too true for me. 
    
    	So much for lunch (I think I need a bathroom).
    
    

That was painful to read, Jody.  And I'm not faint of heart.

I've known that attitude in many, many men and boys I've known in my 
life.  They joke about it.  They think it's all a game.  "Let's go get 
some pussy."  "Ooh baby, you are NICE.  I could make you soooo happy."
(Make is the operative word.  They don't care what *her* feelings are, 
whether he disgusts her or not, because to a man like that, all women 
are his Personal Pleasure Objects and would be grateful to have him in 
her thighs.)  Yep, I've known men like this.  I've heard them talking.  
I've had conversations with them.  I've had dates with them.  I've been
to parties with them.  I've been violated by them.  I've read notes by
them.  I've encountered them at every level of society, from the very 
ignorant to the very well educated to the very rich to the very poor.  
Some have raped and don't even realize it.

And because of the growing number of reported rape cases every year, 
and because more women are coming to the realization that RAPE IS NOT
OK, whether it's by your ex-husband or an ex-boyfriend or a date, we
have to hope that something is going to be done to stop these bastards
who permeate every room in society's house.

Carla

    The Health Information Referral Service on 169 Pleasant Street in
    Marlboro, MA has a book in their library on a study of the rapist
    done by Nicholas Groth.  This was from his studies and working with
    rapists at Bridgewater Center for the Sexually Dangerous (the one
    Guv Ducakis is planning on decrimianlizing and putting into the 
    regular prison population).  Nicholas Groth did pioneer studies in
    MA, CONN, and CALIF.  It was published in the late 70's or early
    80's (can't remember exactly).  I had a chance to buy the book when
    I took their Rape Crisis training but didn't....now I think it's 
    out of print and would be a good addition to any library.

    justme....jacqui

Yeah, Jody, intense.  Definitely intense.  And scary.  Reading it made me
want to hit something.

As the Doctah said, it would be nice to have some feedback, as in "Yeah, yeah,
I can relate to that" from men who have done it.  But I doubt such men are
reading =wn= and if they are, I very much doubt they would own up to such
activities.

But.  (Is this what you meant, Sandy?  We can't discuss a brainstorm once we
hear it?)

But.  That sounds like the mind-set of a man who sets out to rape.  A stranger
rape.  A Rape "with a capital R."  That (to me) doesn't sound like the mindset
of a date rape.  Of a man who didn't set out to rape but "saw red" or whatever
it was that set him off.  One of the "little rapes" on Nancy's continuum.

There seem to be common elements though.  "She deserves it for wearing
that skirt."  "It's my birthright."  "If she'd just do it, I wouldn't 'have'
to do this."  "I'll give you what you want".  "I hate needing women." "Bitch".

If there are different mind-sets for Rape and rape...perhaps we should look
at the overlap of the two to find the "root cause" if there is such a thing.

A few times I have come very close to a date rape, and managed to talk my
way out of it.  One time in particular stays clear in my mind.  And during
that one, the man in question talked constantly, apparantly stream-of-
conciously, apparantly truthfully, about what was going on in his mind.
(He was under the influence of some psychoactive chemical substance at the
time.)  That is the closest *I* have come to seeing into the mind of a 
rapist.  

He was laying in bed next to me (not my choice, but I was too drunk and too
scared to argue).  He was simultaneously rambling on about God and goodness
and original sin, and how all women want sex and he wanted to find a woman
who was *good*, all the time trying to take off my clothes (without my help
or hindrance...my Mom once told me the most effective way to keep your clothes
on is to go limp...it is almost impossible to undress a limp person...it
worked, thank God.)

As with Ann, certain phrases stick in my mind.  "All women want is sex, all
women want it."  "Women tempt good men and make them do bad things." "Women talk
too much and do too much."  "Women are the source of original sin and should be
punished." "Women make men need sex." "You're a good woman, Diana, aren't you?
Aren't you?"  

(Only once, during his entire rambling, did it appear he was addressing me.)

D!

    I've heard a fair amount of that soliloquy from guys, too (minus the
    more hifalutin' parts - the wealthier more well-educated ones still
    didn't come up with that stuff - when it comes to sexual talk, they go
    slumming). 
    
    I never thought of the guys as potential rapists 'til now, just as
    screwed up.  I guess that goes to prove one of Sandy's and The Doctah's
    points, that a man is less likely to be able to define what lies behind
    the crime - no woman who's talked to me about rape has pointed to a man
    I knew and no man's admitted rape to me.  
    
    The only insight into the speech that I can offer right now is the
    "give 'er what she wants" idea.  There's an intimate connection between
    ego and sexual performance that gets started early on in locker-room
    talk.  Sometimes guys move from the "god's gift to women" notion to
    viewing women as a sort of pinball game that they're particularly
    skilled at, and viewing their dates' personalities as obstacles to the
    ultimate (supposedly mutually satisfying) goal.
    
    What's scary is how often I've heard parts of it... 
    
    (,< :)
    Ray

    
    re:.33
    'browbeaten into a retreat' !
    and here i thought i was following the 'say it once, why say it again'
    rule...
    

    re .33  Maybe we could have *three* distinct notes - one FWO for
    women to speculate without interruption or censure, one for
    men only, wherein they might do the same, and one FGD note
    for comments about replies. 
    
    I realize the men-only topic is anathema to this conference,
    but this topic is super-sensitive, and as was said elsehwere,
    the men in this conference aren't likely to admit to anything
    that even hints of rape. Maybe such a note would be helpful
    to those of us who have acted in ways we now see differently.
    
    Dana
    
    The following is an example of what more men might be willing
    to say, under less intimidating circumstances. I understand
    that I'll draw heat for some of it. But it happens to be true.
    
    Have I ever Raped (big 'r') ? No. Small 'r' ? No. Ever been 
    coercive ? No. Pushy, insistent, petulant even ? Yes. 
    
    How did I rationalize it ? Lots of ways.
    
    "Hey, it's how the game is played." 
    "I was just helping her make up her mind. Yeah, that's all." 
    "Women expect men to be pushy. Wouldn't want her to think I 
    was a pansy."
    "Hell, I spent 60 bucks on dinner. What does she think I want ?"
    

    in re .46
    
    if a man wants to talk more freely he can send an anonymous note
    to a moderator to post.
    
    Bonnie

>isn't there a mennotes someplace?

 Yeah, get out of here. You don't belong.

 The Doctah

I found the references to men thinking of women as orginal sin in this topic
disturbing. Because, I found out in '84, that my father believes it. I was
shocked then, and I remain shocked. 

What kind of society calls 1/2 sinners by nature of biology? Christian? Do all
religions (except for Goddess worship) share this idea? 

sigh...	
	Mez

Doctah -

> I'm sure that part of the reason is that speculation on what motivates men 
>to rape would be challenged. 

Yes, that's what I said.

>I think that a larger reason is that few of us have had any (known) contact 
>with rapists; 

Doctah, you are WAY out of line, here.  Most women HAVE had contact with
rapists.  Most women have been bullied or threatened to some level by men.
I've tried to be so non-judgemental, calm and serene typing in my .33 but
I'm tempted to start flaming here.  You're a nice guy, Mark, but you have
no idea what you're talking about when you attempt to align yourself with
women as an equally potential victim in discussing this kind of a subject.
This very statement exemplifies the reason I suggested an FWO might be
needed.

>thus any speculation about what motivates them would be entirely
>a guess and completely unverifiable.

My question to you is this:  why would speculations and guesses among 
victims about their perpetrators being "unverifiable" be useless?  If
the operative "verifiable" is your point, then maybe you might concede
to the fact that most rapes aren't reported or aren't convicted and hense
unverifiable.  I ask you for your definition of "verifiable".  And then
I want to ask you about the value of any underling, (and since that's
a relative term it applies to you in certain situations too), talking
with another underling about the motives, mindsets of those who make
the rules.  You've never done that?  Ever?

>I suppose there is value in the brainstorming activity

Do yo have daughters?  Do you want them to do what they feel is worthwhile
in their quest to remain unraped?  Perhaps we disagree in the methods
and if so, then you are definitely all wet.  This is what women need to
do.  Talk.  Share.  Your daughters need it, your peers do, too.

>such an endeavor would entail, but it seems to me that what would be missing
>is the feedback. 

Eh?  From non-rapists?  Or are you suggesting you have feedback from a
rapists point of view???

> If, on the other hand, we had some men who were rapists and were able to give
>some feedback on the speculation 

So, Doctah, are you saying that you've never heard, in all your life, the
words of a rapist?  Bully for you.  If so, it's because you've never had
to.  Few women have heard the words of Viet Cong, either.  Not that you
personally have, but I say it to point out that everyone learns and pays
attention to the words of the person, group or institution that has the
potential to do them harm.  To that end, I find your protestations here
irrelevant at best, insulting at worst.

>However, given the stigma attached to rapists, 

We women ARE an insensitive lot, aren't we!!!!

>I do not expect men to be beating down theproverbial door to tell us why they 
>did what they did (or perhaps do what they do).

Then you admit women are left to sharing their experiences and speculating
after all, aren't you?  Or are you saying that since they won't talk, we
women should shut up too?  Doctah, please bow out of this.

> That is the missing ingredient: feedback. 

That's it.  Women who are raped haven't gotten the "feedback".  Women
haven't stopped to ask why.  They, (stupid girls), have resorted to 
speaking among THEMSELVES!  Again, please bow out of this gracefully
while you can.

>Are we on the right track, or are we just blowing smoke?

Uh, we???

COBWEB::SWALKER


>    Sandy, there is *nothing* about that thought that says it can only
>    come from a mind in a male body, nor is there anything that makes
    only males' fingers capable of typing it in.  

What "it" are you referring to?

>some people (male and female) are bound to reach a discomfort level that 
>makes them say "hey, back off".

No, really?  This discussion makes rapists nervous?  Does it make any
of you victims feel nervous??  Please come forward!  Rapists need not
comment.

>The notion that "only women could understand this" is too connected with 
>the thought that "women are incapable of understanding XYZ."
>    Don't say it!  It's not true!

Maybe you're right.  Maybe men understand the victim side of rape just
as succinctly as women do.  I admit an error in thinking here.

>Perhaps that's the topic to discuss: why can't we feel comfortable
>discussing these connections?  [footbal violence]  

What's this "we" shit?  Who's actually uncomfortable discussing this
here?

>I'll venture a guess: because it would mean that all of us, as members of
> a society where such things are omnipresent, were *complicit*, *guilty*.  

All of us, Sharon?  The victims too?  I'll leave the rest of the community
to deal with THAT statement!

>In other words, it's easier to say "the victim caused it" than "_we_ 
>caused it".  

Your name is Sharon.  You're a woman.  Who is the "we" and the "victim" 
in the above statement?
    

>Doctah, you are WAY out of line, here.  Most women HAVE had contact with
>rapists.

 Oh, most women have sat down and chatted with admitted rapists about their
motivations and thoughts. I guess I didn't realize that. I sort of figured that 
rapists kind of kept to themselves about their thoughts and motivations, but
obviously I am seriously underinformed.

 All of you that belong in the "most women" category, please relate the thoughts
the various rapists you all have talked with (sounds like at least a dozen or 
two each). I'm sure there must be alot of valuable information here that so far
has eluded screen capture.

>You're a nice guy, Mark, but you have
>no idea what you're talking about when you attempt to align yourself with
>women as an equally potential victim in discussing this kind of a subject.

 You don't know how ironic that statement is. You never will.

>Do yo have daughters? 

 Gee, that didn't take long. the old "do you have daughters" routine. I had
figured you were above that. As you probably already know, I have only three
daughters, 1 who will be 18 in a month, one who is 16, and one who will have
her first birthday next week. I live in a house with four other people, all of
whom are female. Like I really want them all to get raped. Doy!

>Eh?  From non-rapists?  Or are you suggesting you have feedback from a
>rapists point of view???

 I am suggesting that we can guess all day long as to the motives and thoughts
of rapists, but we won't know we're right unless we get feedback from someone
who _knows_. It's not the sort of thing you can derive.

>So, Doctah, are you saying that you've never heard, in all your life, the
>words of a rapist? 

 I have never heard someone who said "I have raped, and this is what went 
through my head at the time." I have never heard anyone say "I am a rapist" or
I have raped."

>To that end, I find your protestations here irrelevant at best, insulting at 
>worst.

 I didn't protest anything.

>We women ARE an insensitive lot, aren't we!!!!

 Are you trying to intentionally distort my every word, or is this natural?
Do you agree or disagree that rapists have a stigma attached to them? (Hell,
I sure hope so!)

>Women who are raped haven't gotten the "feedback".

 I'd love to know how you came up with this gem. 

>They, (stupid girls),

 I just LOVE it when you put words into my mouth.

 I don't know what it is that set you into orbit. If you can seriously say that
you think I mean any of the things you said, then there is no level of
communication taking place. You aren't getting it. I don't know if the problem
is in the transmitter or the reciever, but communication is not occurring.

 Gee- I haven't read a note that got me this angry since the first note of the 
day. How nice.

 The Doctah

    Mark,
    
    C'mon.
    
    You are aware of the statistics on rape, aren't you?  Then it follows,
    that a lot of women have met at least one rapist, doesn't it?  And
    those statistics on rape indicate that most women were at least
    acquainted with their assailants, right?  So, a lot of women know
    rapists, correct?
    
    So, you weren't really thinking, were you?
    
    Now, how do we get from "some women" are acquainted with rapists
    to "most women" are acquainted with rapists?  Very simple.  As has
    been shown in this very notefile, women warn other women about their
    assailants.
    
    It's all too easy.
    
    							Ann B.

In at least partial defense of The Doctah:

	I may, in fact know lots of Presbytarians, but I don't go around
asking people if they're Presbytarian, nor are people in the habit of
coming up to me and announcing that they are, indeed, Presbytarian.

	I may, in fact know lots of people who mutilate small animals, but
I don't go around asking people if they're people who mutilate small
animals, nor are people in the habit of coming up to me and announcing that
they are, indeed, people who mutilate small animals.

	I may, in fact know lots of rapists, but I don't go around asking
people if they're rapists, nor are people in the habit of coming up to me
and announcing that they are, indeed, rapists.

	Of the large number of males I have met in my life, I could hazard
a guess about some of them.  I could guess which ones are/were the most
likely to be rapists.  I could guess where many of them would fall on
Nancy's continium.  In the absence of fact, I would only be guessing.

						--D

re .38 -

Jody, that was very chilling, and very moving.

I think this topic is extremely important. Only I'm not sure "speculation" 
is the right word. I considering why men rape, a topic vital to women, I 
think women can do more than speculate. They can look around them in this 
society, listen, read, think, discuss, exchange ideas, and go a far way 
towards figuring out.

Susan Griffin, in her book Pornography and Silence, has a lot to say that 
seems to me to be relevant here about certain aspects of our society that 
encourage the rapist mindset. In pornography and in rape, which she sees as 
"that event which is surely pornography enacted," Griffin believes our 
society has split off culture from nature; "culture has opposed itself in 
violence to the natural, and takes revenge on nature." Nature is identified 
with the bodies of women, who represent to the pornographic/rapist mind his 
own inner vulnerable self which he despises and needs to punish in order to 
forget:

"the bodies of women in pornography, mastered, bound, silenced, and even 
murdered, are symbols for natural feeling and the power of nature, which 
the pornographic mind hates and fears...'the women' in pornography, like 
'the Jew' in anti-Semitism and 'the black' in racism, is simply a lost part 
of the soul, the region of being the pornographic mind or the racist mind 
would deny."

Griffin sees this pornographic/rapist mindset as dominant in our society,
manifested all around us in literature, art, religion, advertising,
history, in "the random acts of violence which surround our lives." 

The pornographic/rapist mind seeks to deny real feeling, which Griffin 
calls Eros, by punishing the body. The reason, she thinks, is that that 
mind is *afraid of feeling true emotion*. But feeling can never be denied 
completely:

"The pornographer, like the church father, hates and denies a part of 
himself. He rejects his knowledge of the physical world and of his own 
materiality. He rejects knowledge of his own body. This is a part of his 
mind he would forget. But he cannot reject this knowledge entirely. It 
comes back to him through is own body, through desire. Just as he pushes 
away a part of himself, he desires it. What he hates and fears, what he 
would loathe, he desires. He is in a terrible conflict with himself. And
instead he comes to imagine that he struggles with a woman. Onto her body
he projects his fear and desire. So the female body, like the whore of
Babylon in church iconography, simultaneously lures the pornographer and
incites his rage." 

    Mark,

    Get in contact with the HIRS in Marlboro and ask to borrow 
    Nicholas Groth's book on the rapist......he also includes
    the confrontation of survivors of rape and rapists (although
    they were not the actual deed doer to the survivor).  This 
    was done at Bridgewater.  There is documentation on how the
    rapist's mind works.

    The other interesting place to go is EMERGE in Boston to learn
    how the mind of a male emotional/physical abuser works.  I would
    imagine you would be able to talk with a possible rapist there
    too!!!!   

    			To end
    			male
    			violence
    			men
    			must
    			take the
    			initiative
    			__________


    Thank you and have a nice day!!!

    justme....jacqui

    Re .51, Sandy, I'm really curious.  What did you mean when you made
    the statement, "Most women HAVE had contact with rapists"?  I realize
    that when I read it *I* first thought you were saying that "most
    women" have been raped, and I thought, No, "most women", that can't
    be true, can it?  But, that's not what you said.  I don't really
    know what you mean by it.  Do you mean that most women know somebody
    who has raped somebody, or has talked to a rapist, or has been raped
    or almost raped or what?  If I have ever had contact with a rapist
    I'm not aware of it.  Personal contact I mean, not reading an article
    or watching a movie or tv or reading this notesfile.  I know a large
    percentage of women in the U.S. have been raped, but I didn't think
    "most" women had.  That would be really shocking, if that were true.
     It sounds weird, but I guess I didn't realize it was that widespread.
     (I'm talking about violent rape, where the rapists used physical
    force, guns, knives, etc., as opposed to date rape.)
    
    I wouldn't be surprised if most women had been bullied or threatened
    by men at sometime or other.  I know I have :-(.
    
    Lorna
    

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous at this time.

    						=maggie

    ================================================================== 
    
    I have been reading =wn= for the past year, and it has been an     
    integral  part of my healing process.  Thank all of you from the
    bottom of my  heart.

                                                                     

    This is not easy to write.  I lived with a rapist for twelve years. 
    He  was my husband.  And he raped me.  But that doesn't count as a
    rape  legally.  And on the scales listed here, it doesn't even rate
    the big  "R".  It's only rape with a little "r".  But it was brutal. 
    It was  forced on me.  I was damaged physically... emotionally... 
    And it was not  a one time event.  I was a live-in rape victim.

    He has a summa cum Masters from Harvard - I was a Rhodes at Oxford. 
    He  had a responsible executive position in public service - I am a
    writer.   This is just to affirm that the situation was not a result
    of a lack of  education or information.  I was married to a man who
    could speak  passionately and sincerely in public about the rights
    of the Oppressed  (any Oppressed, it didn't matter, fill in your
    favorite) and then would  come home to abuse his wife.  Something -
    large or small - did not go  right.  He needed a scapegoat.  I was
    his wife - therefore he had the  right to use me - anyway he wanted.

    The rape incidents themselves were "few" - seven times over an
    eleven  year marriage.  But the emotional and verbal abuse was
    constant.

    Communicate?  I tried.  Oh god, how I tried.  I wanted my marriage
    to  work.  I would have done anything - and I did!  But any attempt
    ended in  his saying - "That makes me look really bad.  And I'm
    not!"  Or - "I  don't care.  It's your fault.  You just don't
    understand me."  Those are  just the gist of his statements.  If I
    were to write verbatim, it would  be too unbelievable.  Surely no
    intelligent, educated, successful man  says anything like that, much
    less thinks that way?  A man who is  dedicated to the public good? 
    The principles of public good do not apply  in private.

    Counseling?  At last, seven years into the marriage.  I used threats
    to  get him there, and compromise.  The threat?  Counseling, or I
    leave you,  and that will make you look really bad.  Compromise? 
    You pick the  counselor - pick a friend, someone who you think will
    be "on your side".

    Result?  A good counselor, one who could see clearly, but even he
    could  not penetrate the mind set my husband had walled himself
    into.  My  husband LIKED being where he was - he didn't want to
    change.  Why should  he?  He was a really good person.  And the
    whole world thought so -  listen to them all applaud as he stands up
    in the public forum and talks  about the rights of the under
    privileged!

    His reasons for rape?  It wasn't rape - I was his wife.  So it
    couldn't  possibly be rape.  He had the right to do whatever he
    wanted.  And  besides, I really wanted it.  He KNEW I really did. 
    What if I was saying  "NO!" and fighting him off (I weigh
    ninety-five pounds) and crying?  What  if I had just had a
    miscarriage?  He didn't want anything else but him  hanging on my
    tits, he was glad that baby was gone, and if I wouldn't let  him
    "make love to me" I was just saying no to life and love!  What if I 
    did spend three hours crying in the bathroom after - he KNEW that
    what he  did was right!  That was just the rationale for the first
    time.  After  that, it was to "make up after a fight - to prove that
    he really loved  me.  Oh, you don't really mean no.  You owe me this
    now.  You're  bleeding?  Your nose is broken?  Well, why did you
    make such a fuss?   It's your own fault you were hurt.  You're my
    wife - you've GOT to let me  do what I want.  You owe me.  You owe
    me because I love you."

    The situation deteriorated.  I would be awakened in the middle of
    the  night by his punching me in the face and saying - "I'm having a 
    nightmare.  This isn't my fault."

    I ran away.  He doesn't know where I am.  Tomorrow it will be one
    year  since the final divorce decree.  I had a wonderful woman
    lawyer.  She  managed to get a no-fault divorce for me, because
    anything else would  have created rotten publicity and "made him
    look really bad".

    I'm free - but I'm not.  I'm badly damaged and trying to heal. 
    Having  any contact with him in future would not help in any way,
    shape, or form.

    Would he rape anyone else in the future?  Probably.  He thinks it's
    his  right.  Can I do anything about it?  Probably not.  Does that
    bother me?   You're damn right it does.  I don't want any other
    woman to go through  what I did.  Oh, I forgot.  I wasn't raped.  He
    was my husband, so it  wasn't rape.  Forget the graphic details,
    forget the force, forget the  physical and emotional damage.  It
    wasn't really rape, now was it?

    My hands are shaking so much that I can't go on.  All I started out
    to  say was that I have heard some of the reasoning that a rapist
    can use,  and I find myself reliving hell.

    It wasn't really rape - it was a marriage - so I'm told.  All I can
    tell  you is that it sure felt like rape - whatever category on the
    sliding  scale you wish to put it in.  I have all the classic rape
    victim  syndromes.  But this wasn't really rape.

    I will heal.
 

    .58, Your reply brought tears to my eyes.  It made me sick to my
    stomach too: the inhumanity of his attitude, and what you
    had to endure.  Thank God you got away, and I hope you have found
    resources for helping you recover.
    	Linda

    .58 - what a story.  I too hope you find a little peace and hopefully
    some genuine joy in your life.  You have graphically made the point
    that many rapists don't believe they are rapists and that many women
    know rapists, and the mindset, quite well indeed.  I wish you a
    gentle and complete recovery.
    
> Oh, most women have sat down and chatted with admitted rapists about their
>motivations and thoughts. 

You're being ridiculous.  Women spend much more time with men in sexual
and potentially sexual, (dating), situations than most men do, obviously.
And in those situations, they are, presumably, doing some talking with
the guy.  Since most guys have "coerced" to some level, it follows that
most women have spent time talking with such guysz and not about sports
or the weather, either.

>I guess I didn't realize that. I sort of figured that 
>rapists kind of kept to themselves about their thoughts and motivations, but
>obviously I am seriously underinformed.

They certainly don't tell MEN, but they LOVE to tell women.  Go back and 
read Jody Bobbitt's earlier note and the subsequent replies about how 
other women have heard many of the same things.  Letting women know is half 
the fun.  You've heard the locker room talk, too, I'm sure.  You just don't
know how many of them actually bully women.  Plenty, Doctah.  You're just
not there at the time!

> All of you that belong in the "most women" category, please relate the thoughts
>the various rapists you all have talked with (sounds like at least a dozen or 
>two each). I'm sure there must be alot of valuable information here that so far
>has eluded screen capture.

You're in luck.  Continue reading the string for more.  I too have gotten
from MANY men the, "Come on, you know you want it", or the "You bitch, I'll
teach you" routines.  Most of us have.  And many of those men with this
attitude rape sooner or later.  Most of us can pick out a 'dangerous' man
after a few minutes of talking.  A man would have nothing to fear from such
a person and therefore wouldn't see the signals as indicating anything more
than perhaps the guy's a bit of a blowhard.  Alone with a woman, many of
them are empowered by their tender prey.  Many do more than just talk a 
good game.

> Gee, that didn't take long. the old "do you have daughters" routine. I had
>figured you were above that. 

You thought I was above what?  Above trying to personalize this for you?
No, I guess I'm not above trying to make you understand.

>Like I really want them all to get raped. Doy!

Who said that, Doctah?  I assumed you didn't and to that end you would
want them to do what is necessary to protect themselves.  Where we differed
was that you didn't seem to think talking among women about the male
mindset that leads to rape is worthwhile.  I, and many other women, happen 
to think it is.  And we'll continue to do it even without male permission.

> I am suggesting that we can guess all day long as to the motives and thoughts
>of rapists, but we won't know we're right unless we get feedback from someone
>who _knows_. It's not the sort of thing you can derive.

Plenty of us know.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.  Some are even writing
it in here.  And those of us who DO know, are doing all women a favor by
sharing it - your daughters included.  It would be a tragedy if they held
the common belief that men in suits and ties aren't rapists, wouldn't it?
And how would you like them to learn the truth?  There are 2 ways.  Take 
your pick.  It certainly looks like step-dad isn't going to offer much in
the way of info.

> I have never heard someone who said "I have raped, and this is what went 
>through my head at the time." I have never heard anyone say "I am a rapist" or
>I have raped."

Gee, I have.  In books and interviews.  And you're also forgetting the vast
majority of rapists who don't believe that what they're doing is rape.

Like I said before, potential victims of any kind will seek out and pay 
attention to information that may protect them.  Therefore, your relative 
lack of info on rapists isn't surprising in the least.  Your insistance that 
women are as ill-informed as you on the subject, however, is way off base.

>Do you agree or disagree that rapists have a stigma attached to them? (Hell,
>I sure hope so!)

What's your point?  What's the relevance to this discussion?  Victims have
quite a stigma attached, too, but I don't see what this has to do with this.

> I just LOVE it when you put words into my mouth.

Nope.  Those were my words.  I have plenty of my own from my own mouth, thanx.

> I don't know what it is that set you into orbit. 

Yes you do, I told you.  This did:

>>I think that a larger reason is that few of us have had any (known) contact 
>>with rapists; 

It bothered me that, just as I had expected, and right on cue, a guy jumped
in to tell us why he thought discussion of the rapist should be stopped.  Now
you're probably going to say you never said it should be stopped.  No, you
just said things like:


	> ...speculation on what motivates men to rape would be challenged. 

	> ...few of us have had any (known) contact with rapists; 

	> ...any speculation about what motivates them would be entirely
	>a guess...

	> ...what would be missing is the feedback. 

	> If, on the other hand, we had some men who were rapists...


...which to my mind sounds like your reasons on why you believe this exercise
to be futile or at least a great waste of time and disk space.

>You aren't getting it. I don't know if the problem
>is in the transmitter or the reciever, but communication is not occurring.

I hope so.  I'd love to believe so.  Please try again, then.

> Gee- I haven't read a note that got me this angry since the first note of the 
>day. How nice.

Sorry, it's that kind of a subject.  Gee- your note pissed off a few women, 
too. How nice.


Lorna, 

> "Most women HAVE had contact with rapists"?
>  I wouldn't be surprised if most women had been bullied or threatened
>  by men at sometime or other.  I know I have :-(.

And I think most men with this mindset rape sooner or later.  I'd bet more
than one of those guys who bullied or threatened you have raped someone
else by now.  And if I'm right, then you've actually dated a rapist!

A famous college study found that most guys really believe there are in-
stances where force is warranted, and most admitted using it at one time
or another.  I've talked to guys who actually believe there are times
when force is warranted and they don't call that rape.  Rape to many men
means a foaming maniac jumping out from the bushes at an annonymous woman.
They don't see "bullying a date", at whatever level, as rape.  Rape is *very* 
widespread and I believe nearly every woman who dates has dated a rapist.  
The unlucky ones get raped.

Maybe people are thinking about rapists as guys who rape *all the time*.
That just isn't so.  Most people have different reactions to different
people.  Even if a guy treats woman A like a queen, if he rapes woman B, 
he's a rapist.  Many rapists are married and have a relatively 'normal' 
sex life with their wives.  Lots of them open doors for some dates, rape 
some others.  Many women have been woman B.  Most women have been woman A 
and that's what I mean by saying most women know rapists and the attendant 
mindset.  But here we are again, talking about the definition of rape.

>     (I'm talking about violent rape, where the rapists used physical
>    force, guns, knives, etc., as opposed to date rape.)
 
Please be careful about thinking of rape only in terms of guns or knives.
Many women are raped with mere language, i.e. "Be nice now or I'll kill your 
baby", or "You wouldn't want <xyz> to know what a slut you are, do you?  Be 
nice or I'll say YOU came on to ME".  I don't see why you'd want to exempt
date rape from this discussion, Lorna.
    

    Re .60, I don't want to exempt date rape from the discussion.  The
    only reason I made the distinction is that I would be surprised
    if I found out that most women in the U.S. had been violently raped
    (the type of rape where the victim would currently have a case in
    court).  But, I wouldn't be surprised at all if most women in the
    U.S. have been date raped.
    
    Lorna
    

> Women spend much more time with men in sexual
>and potentially sexual, (dating), situations than most men do, obviously.

 My only comment to that is that it is not clear to me that what a man says
is what is going through his mind, though he certainly isn't precluded from
speaking his mind.

>They certainly don't tell MEN, but they LOVE to tell women.  Go back and 
>read Jody Bobbitt's earlier note and the subsequent replies about how 
>other women have heard many of the same things.  Letting women know is half 
>the fun.  You've heard the locker room talk, too, I'm sure.  You just don't
>know how many of them actually bully women.  Plenty, Doctah.  You're just
>not there at the time!

 Are you sure that what a man who is bullying a woman says is what he feels?

>Where we differed
>was that you didn't seem to think talking among women about the male
>mindset that leads to rape is worthwhile. 

 Aha! A major sticking point. I didn't say OR mean that. What I said was that
it would be BETTER to get feedback from those about whom we are speculating.
I never said there was no use to speculating, only that it was of limited use
with no correlation.

>Plenty of us know.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.  Some are even writing
>it in here.  And those of us who DO know, are doing all women a favor by
>sharing it - your daughters included.

 Maybe you do know. On the other hand, there is a possibility that you only
know PART of it. While it's great to tell everyone what you do know, it's better
if there are others to fill in the missing parts. Maybe all of the parts are
available here. I don't know.

>It certainly looks like step-dad isn't going to offer much in
>the way of info.

 Thank goddess appearances can be deceiving.

>Like I said before, potential victims of any kind will seek out and pay 
>attention to information that may protect them. 

 And that's a good thing.

>Your insistance that 
>women are as ill-informed as you on the subject, however, is way off base.

 I wouldn't characterize it as insistence.

>What's your point?  What's the relevance to this discussion? 

 The point was that it is highly unlikely that anyone would stand up and say
"Yes, I raped a woman before." Could you imagine what the reaction to that
would be? And if one accepts the premise that most women are raped, then one
must logically conclude that either most men are involved, or a minority of
men are working overtime. Which means that a rather large percentage of men who 
work for DEC, indeed even those reading this file must be involved in this
activity. So these men are reading what's written here, and some of them must
be saying "yep, that's me." But what if many more are saying "No, that's not
how it was at all." I guess we'll never know will we?

>It bothered me that, just as I had expected, and right on cue, a guy jumped
>in to tell us why he thought discussion of the rapist should be stopped.

 Could there possibly be any validity to the idea that you expected someone
to try to quell the discussion and so interpreted my concern about the validity
of speculations as 'an insistent male voice trying to quiet the women?'

>...which to my mind sounds like your reasons on why you believe this exercise
>to be futile or at least a great waste of time and disk space.

 I didn't think it would be futile OR wasteful; just incomplete.

 Preventing tragedy is never wasteful.

>Please try again, then.

 Well, here 'tis. If you have any more contentions, please resort to mail.
(I think the mods will agree that's the best place at this point.)

 The Doctah

re: .62 (Mark Levesque)

Sandy >>Where we differed was that you didn't seem to think talking 
      >>among women about the male mindset that leads to rape is worthwhile. 

Mark > Aha! A major sticking point. I didn't say OR mean that. 

	I thought you meant that as well, Mark.

	Glad to hear that's not the case.

						nancy b.

> My only comment to that is that it is not clear to me that what a man says
>is what is going through his mind, though he certainly isn't precluded from
>speaking his mind.

When he says things like what's coming out in this string, it pretty much
is his mind.  Unless you know men who say these things to women as jokes.
I don't.

 Are you sure that what a man who is bullying a woman says is what he feels?

What?  You think men who bully women to get sex are possibly joking?  Just
having some good ole fun?  Let's ask the women who have been bullied.  Do
you think these guys are/were joking?

>What I said was that it would be BETTER to get feedback from those about 
>whom we are speculating.

Absolutely.  And in addition, (or instead of), we can share what we know
about rapists and their mindsets among ourselves.

>I never said there was no use to speculating, only that it was of limited use
>with no correlation.

Nein.  It isn't.  The "correlation" is what I'm trying to bring out here -
the similarity of mindsets of rapists as women tell their stories here.

>While it's great to tell everyone what you do know, it's better
>if there are others to fill in the missing parts. 

Many women are writing in this string.  The goal IS for women to tell the
parts they do know and if enough do, we'll get a pretty good picture with
relatively few missing parts.  It seems like we agree.  It seems like every-
thing you say *should* be done *is* being done with this string asking
women to discuss rapists.  I'm beginning to wonder what you're real issue
with this is.

>Maybe all of the parts are available here. I don't know.

This string exists for women's education.  If you are left in the dark by
it, or find it lacking in some way, c'est la vie.  I happen to suspect many
women will find plenty of "parts" available right here.

> I wouldn't characterize it as insistence.

How would you characterize your attitude toward this string, then?

> The point was that it is highly unlikely that anyone would stand up and say
>"Yes, I raped a woman before." 

Exactly.  But that doesn't mean that their victims will say, "Well, gee, if
he won't admit it, I guess he didn't rape me therefore the things I know
about his mindset are irrelevant to this discussion".  No, the fact that 
it is highly unlikely that a man would admit to rape has no bearing on
whether or not their victims have valuable information to impart to other
women.

>And if one accepts the premise that most women are raped, then one
>must logically conclude that either most men are involved, or a minority of
>men are working overtime. 

Yes, if you accept the premise that most women have been raped.  I don't,
though.  I think it's something like 1 in 5.

>and some of them must be saying "yep, that's me." 

One did right in this string.  He admitted to being pushy and bullying a
woman, (women).  I'm sure many others got a little jolt, reading this, too.

> Could there possibly be any validity to the idea that you expected someone
>to try to quell the discussion and so interpreted my concern about the 
>validity of speculations as 'an insistent male voice trying to quiet the 
women?'

Yes, there was validity to my concern.  And I wasn't the only one who ex-
pressed the same concern over the discussion taking this track.  And if
you weren't trying to quiet the women, what was your goal in writing into
this string?  You admit you know little about rapists.  So what did you hope
to accomplish by writing your first reply in this string?

> I didn't think it would be futile OR wasteful; just incomplete.

It'll be far more complete than if NOBODY ever talked about it.  And what
problem do you see with it being "incomplete"?  The whole is greater than
the sum of its parts.  If many women write in here with a little piece
of knowledge, every woman reading this string becomes far more educated
and wise.  I'd rather learn about rapists this way, however "incomplete"
that is.

> Aha! A major sticking point. I didn't say OR mean that [talking about
this is worthless]. 

Well, the following collection of phrases you used certainly added up
in my mind to a collection of reasons why you felt this was a futile 
exercise.  I guess it's late and I'm tired and I just read too much into 
the following:

>speculation on what motivates men to rape would be challenged. 

>few of us have had any (known) contact with rapists; 

>any speculation about what motivates them would be entirely a guess and
>completely unverifiable

>what would be missing is the feedback. 

>It would be like bowling through a curtain.

>So the utility of such an exercise is limited IMO.

> That is the missing ingredient: feedback. 

> are we just blowing smoke?

These words just didn't hit me as encouraging the discussion or contributing
toward the subject at hand.  So what *did* you mean?

> Well, here 'tis. If you have any more contentions, please resort to mail.
>(I think the mods will agree that's the best place at this point.)

Yeah, I could have just ignored you.  I had stated long ago we should 
do that when our discussions get derailed by a man demanding, (sorry, 
asking) to know why we're talking about this or asking what we hope to 
accomplish or some other sidetrack.  I'd like to get back to the topic
too.  These stories, I think, are very good for both men and women
to read.  Both will begin to get a clearer picture of how common it is
for men to relate to the women they supposedly like and love in such
brutal, "me Tarzan" ways - the mindset that sets the stage for rape.

    I don't (try as I might) understand why the Doctah came across to
    some as trying to quell discussion in this string (be he male or
    not, I might add).  
    
    I, too, agree, that IF we had input from men who HAD raped here,
    and could get their direct input on exactly what was going through
    their minds at the moment, it would provide insight in this discussion
    that is not completely available at the moment.  Now, before guns
    start turning in my direction:
    
    YES, discussion as it is so far IS insightful, productive,
    enlightening, informative and valuable.  
                                          
    YES, it should continue.
    
    YES, speculation is NOT bad.
    
    YES, the people who have typed in their experiences in rape situations
    are to be praised for their input and their stories used as
    springboards for discussion and learning.  
    
    YES, perhaps there ARE a lot of potential/actual rapists women in
    this country have encountered, but Mark's point was that encountering
    a (known) <---exactly how he put it, and an unknown rapist is *not*
    quite the same thing.  Thus, his remarks about a man standing up
    and saying "Yes, I am a rapist".  There's a difference.  If someone
    is going to go that far to admit he's raped, chances are he will
    discuss it, from his point of view.  If the knowledge that a man
    is a rapist is totally one-sided and unshared, there is little chance
    that discussion of what goes through his mind when he rapes will
    be revealed, since the topic is not likely to come up.  
               
                       
    In any case, this discussion could be added to if the input of a
    rapist were available to read/comment upon, and in the abscence
    of such direct input, it is speculation for the *most* part on what
    we can say goes through a man's head (granted, speculation in a
    broader sense than mere guesswork), but the fact that we don't have
    a rapist commenting in here in direct terms doesn't make the string
    worthless.  And I think that Mark was simply trying to point out
    the same gist, not be The Male Trying to Shut Down the Conversation
    of Silly Women (*MY* words!!!!!!)
    
    ---kim
    
    (Mark:  I *think* I know what you meant--apologies if I got it out
    of context)

    I don't think the Doctah was *deliberately* trying to shut down
    discussion.
    
    However, he used a lot of replies to point out something that's fairly
    obvious to most people in our society.  (I.e., rapists don't announce
    their vocation at cocktail parties and in notefiles so that people can
    psychoanalyze them.)  
    
    We manage to discuss a lot of things here (sexism in management style,
    sexual harassment, political decisions) without input from the people
    who actually do them.  Why was it necessary to point out explicitly
    (over and over) that we weren't going to get that kind of input here?
    
    How about "hampering" discussion in this string rather than trying to
    "quell" it?
    
    Pam

    re: .42 or .43, jacqui
    
    There is a book called MEN WHO RAPE (published in the late 1970s) that
    is a series of interviews with convicted rapists.  It may be the study
    you refer to.  The person who wrote it came up with four distinct
    "types" of rapists, based on what he heard in the interviews. 
    
    The hard thing to read in there was that when you are assaulted you
    have a short amount of time to try to analyze which type of rapist you
    have and which way you should react to try to calm the situation down
    (some respond to talking, some are annoyed by talking; some feel
    sympathetic to crying, others want you to feel pain, etc.).  
    
    It was a very interesting peek into the minds of men who have raped on
    purpose.  I read it when I worked for the National Criminal Justice
    Referral Service (NCJRS) in 1979 -- they have a copy of it and an
    abstract of it on file.  Don't remember the author.
    
    Pam

    Pam,

    The title "sounds" right.  Also, the fact that rapists have
    been divided into four types.  I also believe that it was 
    said that one of the types is one that the victim never lives
    to report on - or is thoroughly messed up!

    Thanks,

    justme....jacqui

Did anyone else hear the report on NPR last Friday on rape based on a
study at the University of Illinois?  Based on a questionaire that
they did, they discovered that (I'm going from memory here):

16% of female studies had been sexually assaulted.
80% or sexual assualts were from people the victim knew.
In 80% of the cases, both assailant and victim were drinking.
65% involves frat brothers or frat parties.

The guy in charge of student affairs said that they did a lot with
lighting and whistles and stuff (geared towards "stranger rape" but
based on the figures were trying to figure out how to deal with all
the aquainatnce rape).  He pooh=poohed the role of frats saying that
you couldn't blame it on one group but I thought the figure was quite
interesting and indicated something...

john

    re .69, John-
    
    > 65% involves frat brothers or frat parties.
    > ...
    > He pooh=poohed the role of frats saying that you couldn't blame 
    > it on one group but I thought the figure was quite interesting 
    > and indicated something...
    
    Having myself attended a school where fraternities provided over
    50% of available housing, I'm inclined to think the figure may 
    just be representative of where the students live and socialize.
    Does anyone know how extensive the fraternity system at the U of
    Illinois is, and whether or not it is the center of organized
    undergraduate social activities?  That data would help me understand
    whether or not the 65% figure represents a problem with the men in
    the fraternity system specifically, or with the entire undergraduate 
    male population.  (That is, if 60-70% of all men at U of I are in 
    fraternities, that 65% of all rapes are committed by fraternity men 
    isn't an indictment of the fraternities, but of the entire campus.)  
    
    My experience is admittedly skewed.  I, too, was one of 50% of 
    undergraduate men at my school who joined a fraternity.
    
    DougO

    re .70  That frat-provided housing is usually off-campus, away from
    the influence of the school officials. We're dealing with 18-20
    year-olds, new to living on their own, new to alcohol, with no
    supervision. 
    
    Is it any wonder that schools are starting to ban the frats ?

    I went to a Big 10 school and am familiar with Illinois.  Greek
    housing is in fact a large percentage of available housing (I won't
    swear to the precise percentage), and an even larger percentage of 
    organized social activity.  Greek housing *is* on-campus, and is 
    under the jurisdiction of campus police and under-graduate deans.
    The east coast norms of off-campus and not university controlled
    really don't apply.
    
    Alison

    If I recall correctly (I was listening to the same broadcast on
    NPR--very informative radio network), the gentleman did not exactly
    pooh-pooh the idea of frat houses being banned/responsible/etc.
    
    As the initial note a few back said, he did admit that the college
    had centered itself around preventing stranger rape, and that they
    would have to refocus on the obviously much higher than expected
    incidence of aquaintance rape.  When asked about what to do with
    the frat houses, he said that that was being looked into, with the
    possible re-deployment of "house-mothers" of yore, an adult,
    semi-supervisory prescence being in each frat house to oversee things.
    
    In all actuality, I was suprised at the honesty and genuine interest
    the man displayed in discussing and resolving the problem of
    acquaintance rape on the campus, instead of adopting the usual "Well,
    I'm going to protect the good name of this school and problems never
    "really" happen here" attitude that people acting as spokespersons
    usually have.
    
    ---kim

    My freshman year of college was spent at Valparaiso University in
    Indiana. It was voted that year as one of the top party schools by
    Playboy magazine and the frats were the reason. From the few parties
    I went to (I was a GDI and didn't often mix with frat types) it was
    a very high potential rape situation. The primary goal of the party
    seemed to be to get young women drunk out of their minds. That
    turned me off totally to the greeks and their value system. liesl

As a card-carrying graduate of the University of Illinois (back when
Dick Butkus played football there), I remember that fraternities
provided roughly 30% of the available housing, and that they were
not exactly known for their academic achievements.

The Dean of Students (who was interviewed by NPR) did say that
the rape percentages -- while admittedly high -- were in line
with data from other universities.  (15% vs 18%, as I recall).

Martin.

    When I was in college over 20 years ago, the fraternities had
    the reputation of being where the heaviest drinkers and the guys
    who would try the hardest to get you to bed were found. My impressions
    of fraternities are pretty similar to Liesl's and Martin's. Obviously
    I have no contemporary experience. 
    
    In re bans on Greek societies, many colleges eliminated their fraternities 
    back in the late 60s early 70s partially as an out growth of the civil 
    rights, anti war movement, and partially due to problems with excessive
    drinking inappropriate partying and racism. It is kind of sad to realize 
    that these societies were originally started as self help and study groups 
    by young men of very high religious and philosophical ideals back in the 
    19th century. I think that a fraternity that cleaved more to those old
    ideals would have a very positive role on any campus.
    
    Bonnie

	Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, Class of '82

	The fraternaties & sororities had houses on university-owned land.
Only 4 people (usually the officers of the organization) were permitted to
live in the houses.  Alcohol was a way of life, for the greeks & the GDI's
alike.

	This topic triggered a memory I had sort of forgotten.  A friend of
mine, the younger sister of one of my close female friends & classmate was
raped at a frat party my senior year.  She was a freshman. She never prosecuted.
I didn't push it. (I don't know if she ever told her sister.)

	I remember entertaining thoughts of tossing a molotov cocktail
through the windows of the house in question.

	I wish I had known as much about the topic then as I do now.  Maybe I 
could have helped her more.

						--D

    This posting is from the usenet newsgroup biz.clarinet.sample, and
    discusses the University of Illinois study first mentioned by John
    Heffernan as reported on NPR.  Clarinet appears to have obtained it
    from UPI.
    
    DougO
    
Article 1902 of biz.clarinet.sample:
From: [email protected] (MARC MAGLIARI)
Subject: 16 percent of students attacked, fraternities blamed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 6 Feb 90 18:16:21 GMT

	CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (UPI) -- More than 16 percent of women students at
the University of Illinois report they have been sexually assaulted by
fraternity members in more than 63 percent of the cases, a university
task force reported Tuesday.
	The report by the Campus Task Force on Sexual Assault, Abuse and
Violence called for ``the strongest possible measures'' in eliminating
such crime and fraternity behavior.
	The task force urged restrictions on alcohol consumption and
suggested instituting programs aimed at eliminating ``the prevalent
philosophies ... (that) lead to violence against women.''
	The task force was appointed in September by Stanley Levy, vice
chancellor for student affairs, after he received preliminary results
from a survey  mailed last spring to a computer-generated random sample
of 1,460.
	Of the 537 undergraduate women who responded to the survey, 16.4
percent  reported criminal sexual assaults. Of those assaults, 63
percent of the offenders were identified as University of Illinois
fraternity members.
	``This survey tended to confirm in definite numbers much of what we
had feared,'' Levy said. ``Not many campuses have been willing to do
such a survey, but we wanted to know the reality.''
	Of the sexual assault victims who answered questions regarding
alcohol, 80.8 percent reported the offender had been drinking at the
time of the incident and 71.1 percent reported they themselves had been
drinking.
	Other recommendations made by the task force include requiring all
certified student housing units -- and sororities and fraternities -- to
have a trained resident director of at least 24 years of age by fall
1991.
	It also suggested the institution of a ``human relations'' program,
to be required of all freshmen and transfer students, covering ``risk of
and responsibility for sexual misconduct.''

    re .80, mike z-
    
    > 	What constitutes sexual assault?
    
    Who are you asking?  While I posted the article in .79, I do not
    presume to speak for either UPI nor the authors of the report upon
    which the story was based.  I suggest you write the University of 
    Illinois at Champaign and request a copy of the report of the Campus 
    Task Force on Sexual Assault, Abuse and Violence as referenced in the
    article.  Or, if you want my speculations please take it to a more
    appropriate topic (I suggest 961).
    
    DougO

    I graduated in '78, and was a member of Sigma Theta Epsilon, the men's
    Christian service fraternity, the three-pronged purpose of which was to
    provide social activities, community service and religious growth
    (non-denominational and non-discriminatory - despite the title we even
    had a Jewish member, and athiests and agnostics, as well).
    
    Its doubtful that you have ever heard of STE, as there are only about
    six active chapters in the U.S.  
    
    But I just thought I'd point out that not ALL fraternities are
    organized just for partying, and some still strive to live up to the
    original ideals of fraternity.  We had the highest average GPA and no
    known cases of date rape (although one pledge got a coed pregnant and
    married her - I didn't say we were perfect - just not rapists).  
    
    Jim
    

>    Who are you asking?...

 Doug- I believe Mike was asking a rhetorical question. He noticed, as did I,
that the text referred to sexual assault in general, not rape in particular.
And yet in referring to the survey, people seem to have been interchanging
rape and sexual assault freely. While I do not wish to minimize in any way
the findings of the survey, there's a big difference in my mind from someone
grabbing a coed's behind at a party (which is demeaning and insulting in its
own right) and forcing said coed into sexual acts against her will. And Mike
was simply addressing that aspect of the survey- it would be interesting to
know what the questions were and how they were asked.

 The Doctah

    
    The following is reproduced without permission from today's
    Daily Mail. Author - Lynda Lee-Potter, "woman writer of the year".
                                                           
    This touches on rape, conditioning and pornography.
    
    WHEN RAPE IS CHILD'S PLAY
    
    "Widespread pornography has perverted the next generation's sense
    of fun.
    
    Last week three boys aged nine and ten carried out a mock rape on
    a nine-year-old girl in the playground of a primary school in Ladywood,
    Birmingham. Two of the boys held her down while the third staged
    the simulated attack.
    
    It's a chilling and terrifying incident that is surely as awful
    for the boys as for the sad little girl. Childhood is either bleak
    or non-existent when simulated rape is a child's idea of playtime.
                            
    At an age when we assume that 9 year olds are still reading Dandy
    and Beano and scuffling with each other in mock battles, these small
    boys have clearly seen scenes in either videos, television or
    pornographic magazines which they should never have been privy to.
    
    We've read much in the last year about children being abused by
    adults, but we now see the grim truth of children being abused by
    children. 'Rape has become such a horrific problem that even primary
    school pupils are seeing females as available' says Christine Keates
    of the Union of Women teachers.
    
    We already know that 14 year old boys think of teenage girls as
    slags and whores, that they use violent language or derision when
    they talk about them. It's now becoming apparent that the contempt
    is starting at an earlier age because even simulated rape is based
    on hate an a desire to humiliate.
    
    Never before has there been a stronger indication that we need
    censorship. Surely nobody can now advocate absolute freedom for
    all to see and read what they choose? Childreean need childhood
    to grow into humane adults and this is being taken away from them.
    
    By the time children are 12 or 13 they will be so immune that they
    will want increasingly violent titillation. You cannot blame a 9
    year old child for trying to put into practice what he sees. And
    even on television children can watch both horror and sexual depravity.
    The ruling which says scenes unsuitable for  family viewing should
    not be shown before nine o'clock is useless. It belongs to a world
    which believes children are tucked up in bed by that time in crlean
    pyjamas warmed by the fire and drinking a cup of cocoa as Daddy
    reads them a story.
    
    Many children who regularly feast their eyes on near pornography
    don't have a Daddy. They don't know what it is to be tucked up in
    bed by a smiling, happy Mummy. They're left night after night on
    their own in high-rise flats free to watch as much obscene trash
    as they want to.
    
    All our rules about what should be allowed on television, let alone
    videos, don't deal with the real world. the real world has been
    revealed in a primary school playground where small boys play a
    new childhood game. It's called Rapists." 
    

>    Never before has there been a stronger indication that we need
>    censorship.

 Never befopre has there been a stronger indication that we need to
return to a strong family concept. The demise of the family in American life
is more closely correlated with the increased incidence of violence and
early sexuality than the increase in violent and sexual images. The problem
with censorship is that eventually it will be used to suppress opinions like 
that made in .84.

>Surely nobody can now advocate absolute freedom for
>    all to see and read what they choose? 

 No freedom is absolute, yet the concept of controlling what ADULTS are 
"allowed" to see and read is abominable. I think it is reasonable to disallow
the publication of a very few things like pictures of violent, sexual crimes
being committed, libelous statements, kiddie porn, snuff films. Forcing
Calvin Klein to stop making Obsession commercials will not solve the problem.

>Childreean need childhood
>    to grow into humane adults and this is being taken away from them.

 I absolutely agree. However, I think the parents play a strong role in this.

>    The ruling which says scenes unsuitable for  family viewing should
>    not be shown before nine o'clock is useless. It belongs to a world
>    which believes children are tucked up in bed by that time in crlean
>    pyjamas warmed by the fire and drinking a cup of cocoa as Daddy
>    reads them a story.

 In that case, delete the ruling. There's no need to keep rules which are
"useless" intact.

>    All our rules about what should be allowed on television, let alone
>    videos, don't deal with the real world. the real world has been
>    revealed in a primary school playground where small boys play a
>    new childhood game. It's called Rapists." 
 
 And we're blaming that on TV? TV is merely a symptom, not the cause. 

 The Doctah   

    
    what, exactly, is 'a strong family concept'?
    

    and what does it have to do with an increase in early sexuality
    and violence?  I am missing something here.  Would be an interesting
    topic for a new note.
    	Linda

 Answering the question of how the fall of family values contributes to a rise 
in violence and early sexuality is a long and difficult topic; I will do my 
best to condense my reasons for feeling that such a correlation indeed exists.

 First, a definition. family values, in the sense I am talking about, means 
less about biological parents and children than it does about the importance 
of maintaining a strong sense of family with regards to the raising of 
children by caring and nurturing individuals who have constancy and stability.

 How does a child become violent?

 For one thing, children learn what they live. If daddy is constantly beating 
mommy, they will learn that violence is acceptable and a normal way of life. 
If a larger and stronger child manages to get her way by exerting dominance 
over her younger sibling and is not corrected, she learns that asserting her 
greater strength is an effective and approved method to get what one wants.

 One of the major losses in this era of declining family values is the loss of 
discipline. It is readily apparent upon entering any school, no matter what 
the size or the age of the children. It is painfully obvious that the children 
are not getting the requisite discipline at home. This is a recipe for 
disaster. Children feel there are no consequences associated with their 
actions. Parents are too busy to bother to correct children when they do 
things wrong.

 "I am simply too tired at the end of the day to have the energy to correct 
everything that David does wrong. I am a single parent who has to support a 
child on a low salary while putting in many hours. I just don't have the 
energy." This sentiment has been repeated so often I can almost finish the 
sentence for the people who say it. The net effect of this apparent lack of 
energy is that David is a bully in school, and there's precious little the 
school can do about it. When it's time for David to go to bed, if he resists, 
the parent simply allows David to do what he wants. This teaches David that 
he may simply ignore his parent or pitch a fit, and he'll get his way. As he 
grows up, he will be bewildered when the "real world" fails to operate on such 
easy to comprehend principles.

 Lack of supervision is one of the prime reasons kids get into trouble. 
Parents who let their kids roam the streets at night and/or don't ever seem 
to know where their kids are practice the ostrich method of parenting- 
anything I don't know won't hurt me so I'll hide my head in the sand and not 
know anything. One survey of young hoodlums found that boredom and excess 
free time were the leading causes of the trouble the kids got into- vandalism, 
theft, violence, drugs and sex. The kids were in the 7th and 8th grade in 
suburban school districts.

 Children need supervision. While not every child that is left unsupervised 
chronically gets into violence or sexual situations, the fact remains that 
children are incompletely formed emotionally and psychologically, and will 
manage to do things that are wrong. When these behaviors become procedural, 
ingrained and do not get corrected, you end up with dysfunctional adults.

 There is little doubt that the media barrage of sex and violence contributes 
to the increased levels of sexual and violent behaviors exhibited by 
increasingly young children each year. However, the mere existence of the 
barrage is insufficient, in and of itself, to explain the rise in this 
phenomena. The missing ingredient is the lack of family discussion about 
programs, the lack of parent-child interaction on basic levels of morality, 
the absence of moral guidance. The problem is that mom and dad are not home or 
are too busy to be bothered with such a drab task as raising the children when 
there are stock markets to follow, soap operas to watch, cocktails to drink, 
and sports scores to follow.

 I firmly believe that to turn the trend around, a reordering of priorities 
must take place. Children are our future. If we ignore them now, they will 
enslave us, rather, we will fall prey to our own indolence and materialism. If 
we fail to teach Johnny that Sue is every bit as valid as he as an individual, 
and not properly subject to his fits of angst, we will pay the price farther 
on down the road. To shape the world into what we want it to be, we must begin 
with ourselves, by molding our behavior into something which we are proud to 
have our children emulate. A lack of good role models plagues us. Then we must 
be ever so careful to raise our children in such a manner that they are given 
reassurance that doing the right thing is more important than "feeling good" 
for a short time, that they cannot engage in anti-social behaviors with 
impunity, and that they are worthy, valued human beings.

 I realize this is a rather circuitous route to answer the question. If you 
feel I have failed to establish a case, I can be more specific. In any case, 
please ask questions about anything that needs clarification.

 The Doctah

    
    re .84:
    
>    It's a chilling and terrifying incident that is surely as awful
>    for the boys as for the sad little girl.
    
    Oh, right.  And the Holocaust was as 'chilling and terrifying'
    for German Nazis as it was for European Jews, right?
    
    What utter and complete bullshit.
                            

>       <<< Note 958.89 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>

    
>    re .84:
>    
>>    It's a chilling and terrifying incident that is surely as awful
>>    for the boys as for the sad little girl.
>    
>    What utter and complete bullshit.


    I guess I saw the statement in an entirely different context.  What I
    see the author saying is that it's chilling and terrifying that these
    little boys would think that it's alright to do something like this.

    I think the sentence was poorly written, but I think the context around
    it supports my assemilation of it (at least in my mind, I've read it a
    few times now and come up with the same context).  It's not the act the
    author is talking about, but the fact that the boys could even think
    that it was okay.


    kathy

    re: .88
    
    Beautifully put, Doctah -- I agree with you one hundred percent on
    this one.  
    
    And it probably should be noted that the kind of values you're
    talking about don't depend on a particular kind of family
    structure -- working father and mother at home, or extended
    family, or any other structure that happens to be current.  A
    loving, caring single parent can do a better job than a tired,
    overworked couple striving to move up the corporate ladder, or an
    abusive alcoholic who doesn't regard his/her children as people,
    only as nuisances.
    
    This whole issue plays a part in why Neil and I both work.  Partly
    it's because we both have our own careers and intersets that we
    want to pursue, but partly it's so that with two incomes coming
    in, neither of us has to work as hard to have the same standard of
    living, and we both have more time to spend with our children on
    family activities.  
    
    It's no guarantee that everything's going to turn out all right,
    but if our kids turn to violence and sexual inequities, they're
    going to know we don't approve.  
    
    Our children are so precious.  They are the future.  Why does our
    society treat them so badly?
    
    --bonnie

re: a few back about banning frats.

Amherst College banned frats in 1984 (I went to nearby Smith College).  The 
result?  Frats are as active as ever.  They are financed by rich alums to keep
them going underground and all initiations are done off campus (at colleges
where frats are still allowed).  I am not sure but I think that groups of 
students still live in the houses that used to be frat houses because I was 
always hearing about friends going to frat parties on the campus there.  The 
frats did develop a little more of a social conscious but that mainly stemmed 
from the fact that they needed to keep on the good side of everyone or else 
their activities would have been reported to the administration.

Banning frats are not going to do it.  Many of my friends have been harressed
at Smith College (still an all-women seven sister) parties.  I remember one of
my friends running upstairs to get away from some guy that would not leave her
alone.  It is the attitude that has to change.

-- Nisha

p.s. in the defense of greeks --  I have seen posters put out 
     by some nationwide committee of greeks with the saying "NO MEANS NO" and
     urging their members to act responsibly.

    Nisha
    
    sounds like the way things were at Amherst 20 years ago when I was
    at Mt. Holyoke.
    
    Bonnie��

          "For one rapist who was treated by Marshall, the pattern begins
          when he gets into a heated argument with his wife and storms out
          of the house to "cool off."  He begins thinking about how good it
          would feel to get back at his wife by having sex with another
          woman and how much better it would feel if that sex were forced.
          He goes to a bar and approaches a woman, imagining what it would
          be like to rape her.  He asks to take her home, and once there,
          he assaults her.

          To be effective, treatment must teach the offender various
          strategies to disrupt the chain at any and all points along it,"
          Marshall says.  To do that, therapists try to get sex offenders
          to associate their deviant fantasies with something unpleasant.
          Frequently, the therapist asks the offender to think of a list of
          consequences he particularly fears might result from his crimes.
          He might imaging that he is brutally raped in prison or that his
          wife is raped or killed by the victim's vengeful family, or that
          his children are harassed at school because of their father's
          misdeed.

          The therapist tells the rapist to imagine the sequence of
          thoughts that led him to the initial rape, and once these are
          vividly clear he is told to imagine one of the feared scenes.
          This pairing of thoughts is repeated again and again until the
          offender becomes adept at using the negative consequences to
          disrupt his chain of deviant thoughts."

          Some offenders are taught, usually through group sessions, to
          better understand their victims' suffering.  ...  The reality of
          what these victims go through is very different from what many of
          these offenders imagine.  ...  Many rapists imagine that the
          victim would like to date them after the rape is over because of
          their sexual prowess.
          [ <--  just when I thought I'd heard it all - massive gag]

                                                       nancy b.

    (I will try and sort through the introduction notes later and
    introduce myself, but I had to write in on this one.)
    
    There is a recent book called MEN ON RAPE which discusses
    many of the issues that this note has, e.g.
    
      Woman as object
      What is it about U.S. society that contributes to the development
        of a concept that rape is "OK" under certain circumstances (e.g.,
        date rape) - and by the way, I am not in any way suggesting that 
        it is
      What do men think they are doing when they commit rape
    
    I don't know the author but I can check and write another reply.
    
    Also, my .02:  there ARE men who can understand the victim's point
    of view because they have been raped also.  Some may scoff and say
    there are precious few.  But if you know only ONE such man, it 
    changes your whole view on what are "women's issues" and what are 
    "men's issues".  I would suggest that if you don't know someone's
    background (and you are not likely to know this aspect of a man's
    experience unless you are very close), that you (generalized "you")
    might think twice about blasting them about how they could not
    possibly understand just because they are a man.  IMO, Mark was trying
    to bring up some interesting points of view and got flamed a bit more
    than he deserved.  I am not suggesting any correlation here about his
    background, of course.  I am quite new to this conference.  But I hope
    that this is a place where we are all treated as human beings FIRST,
    gender-associated beings SECOND.  Aggravated violence between humans
    is a devastating issue for which we as humans in our society 
    should all share a deep concern.  I am concerned that within this
    particular note men have been made objects to some degree. 
    
    I've run out of steam here and hope to add to it later in another
    reply.  Maybe I'm too "humanistic" to begin to contribute to this
    conference.  Is defense of men OK if you're female?  
    
    Just some thoughts.  Anyway, the book is good.
    
    A heck of an introduction,
    Susan

re: 958.96 (Susan Korgen)

>    There is a recent book called MEN ON RAPE which discusses
>    many of the issues that this note has, e.g.
>    I don't know the author but I can check and write another reply.

	That was a scary book.

	I think Jacqui (....justme) Gardner said in another place    
	here that the author is Timothy Benecke.

>    Also, my .02:  there ARE men who can understand the victim's point
>    of view because they have been raped also.  Some may scoff and say

	To an extent, I agree.  One big difference to me in 
	considering female victims of rape and straight male victims
	of rape is that women are raped in the same place where they
	intercourse happens, whereas straight males are not.

>   I am concerned that within this particular note men have been made 
>   objects to some degree. 
    
	Susan, I don't think I understand what you wrote above - 
	"men have been made objects".

	This topic was entitled "the rapists".  If I recall correctly
	however, many of the replies were about definitions of rape
	or focused on the victims, instead of the rapists.  Several
	times I think Sandy Ciccolini pointed out what was happening
	(the "midirection").   

	To the extent that we were talking about "rapists" which 
	typically are male, yes, we were trying to focus (make into
	objects?) men.
							nancy b.	

    I just joined the Nashua library last week.  I went in to get
    "Martha Stewart's Wedding Book", but came out with "Men on Rape".
    Quite a contrast, I know.

    I totally agree with Nancy -- it WAS scary!  I know this book was
    discussed earlier in this string, I hope I don't repeat what
    has already probably been said.

    I whipped thru this book in two nights.  It was one of those ones
    that you just can't put down.  However, it wasn't like a Stephen
    King novel because this was REAL.  These were REAL men who were
    talking.  And what they said often left me in a state of disbelief.

    Although most of them were very sympathetic to the women's position
    [many had girlfriends, wives, friends who had been raped], the
    majority had this underlying belief that the woman somehow asked for
    it.  That her beauty/clothes/actions overcame the man and he could
    no longer control himself.  That rape was part of the natural order
    of things.

    It completely disgusted me.  I read most of with my jaw hanging open
    and shaking my head.  I almost didn't read it.  It was like, if I
    didn't read it, and didn't know about it, maybe it wasn't true.  It's
    only from reading the courageous notes here that I had the guts to
    feel that I OWED it to myself to educate myself.

    Thanks,
    Sue

    My first reaction to that book is that the author may have chosen
    the interviews that inflamed.  If some 1000 guys like me had been
    interviewed and said, "It's disgusting, jail the rapists",
    and the book printed those responses, it wouldn't have been published.
    
    Now if we were bloodthirsty and said string him up by the xxxxx
    and let him hang there, they might have printed it.
    
    In summary, I think some of those books are intended to inflame
    as many readers as possible.
    
    ed