Conference turris::womannotes-v2

(Not an answer to the basenote question, but a reponse to Mez's note to
me in the "Side Effects" note, more appropriately responded to here...)

No, Mez, I didn't think your note was directed at me personally.  I just
found myself on the "other side of the fence", and defending the opinions
of the person(s) to whom it was directed.  Therefore I answered it myself.

It seemed (seems) that there were two issues.  One, like you said, that
men should believe a NO when they hear one, they shouldn't try to manipulate
or persuade or force or anything else; the other, whether doing such
constitues rape.  It seemed like a lot of people (including you) were
disagreeing with the statement "Manipulation doesn't mean rape" saying
"Manipulation is *wrong*." I don't see those two statements as contradictory,
and I wanted to point out each "faction" in the recent discussion in
"Side Effects" was perhaps disagreeing with nothing.

So by saying "manipulation into sex is bad" you are either defending the
"manipulation == rape" argument, in which case my response to you was
as appropriate as any in the discussion, or you were pointing out a
fact that, while true and important, I feel derails a discussion about what 
constitutes rape.

I'm glad we moved this to its own topic.

D!

	Model Penal Code 

	Section 213.1  Rape and Related Offenses

	   (1)Rape.  A male who has sexual intercourse with a female
  	             not his wife is guilty of rape if:
	      (a) he compels her to submit by force or by threat of
		  imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain,
		  or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone; or   
	      (b) he has substantially impaired her power to appraise
		  or control her conduct by administering or employing
		  without her knowledge drugs, intoxicants or other 
		  means for the purposes of preventing resistance; or
	      (c) the female is unconscious

	   Rape is a felony of the second degree unless (i) in the course
    	   thereof the actor inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone, or
	   (ii) the victim was not a voluntary social companion of the actor
	   upon the occasion of the crime and had not previously permitted
	   him sexual liberties, in which cases the offense if a felony of 
	   the first degree.  Sexual intercourse includes intercourse per os
	   or per annum, with some penetration however slight; emission is
	   not required.

	   A man who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife commits
	   a felony of the third degree if:

	      (a) he compels her to submit by any threat that would prevent
		  resistance bya woman of ordinary resolution; or
	      (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or defect
		  which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
	  	  her conduct; or
	      (c) he knows that she is unaware that a sexual act is being
		  committed upon her or that she submits because she falsly
		  supposes that he is her husband.

    <--(.3)
    
�	If not, how can the person you're talking to, be sure which one
�    you mean?  And how can that person judge when the next appropriate
�    time to ask is?
    
    That's *precisely* the point, Mike:  the person should *ask* which one
    you mean, and when the next appropriate time to request is!
    
    						=maggie

    This section of the penal code seems to exclude the possibility
    of rape by a female of a male or of same sex rape.
    
    Is there another section that pertains to these or does the law
    presume that these cannot happen, or that these acts are not 
    offenses?
    

    <--(.4)
    
    No, this is the place.

For the most part, I think .2 sounds like a reasonable legal definition, 
except for 1) the impossibility under such a definition of a husband raping
his wife, and 2) the impossibility under such a definition of male-to-male
rape.  I would assume that other similar offenses, such as forced penetration
with an object, or unwilling sexual contact not involving penetration falls
under different definitions, such as "sexual assault".  Nancy, do you 
happen to have a similar model definition for "sexual assault" or related
crimes?

D!

     In partial response to the base note:                                                     
    
    >What is rape?  
    
    To me, rape is any coercive sexual act (physical or emotional) that
    occurs between two or more persons (of any gender combination). IMO,
    it's irrelevant whether penetration has occurred. 
    
    
>    What is attempted rape?  
   
    When someone doesn't stop after the first "no, No, NO, or NO!".
                                                   
    
                                  
    
    

I don't think you've quite captured what I'm trying to talk about D!, but
that's ok, it isn't up to you to make me clear.

I'm not trying to define rape myself; there are dictionaries and lawyers
a-plenty.

I would like to come up with some set of things that might intersect with rape
and sexual harrasment, and give them the term with the moral force of 'rape'.
Any term will do; an accurate term is best. I think that would be a good step
towards changing those lousey societal values (like, I could use it here, and
in my personal life).
	Mez

    
    re:.9
    i agree.
    

    
    re: 525.266
    (sorry, but i don't know how to do the extract/>>> thingee)
    
    Mike...
    You asked if no meant "not now" , not this week, not ever,...
    Well, IMHO, it means "not on this date".  It doesn;t mean not
    ever...i'd say that if that's what I meant.  We were discussing
    dating right?  If you were thinking about a live-in situation...
    then I'd say, no means 'not tonite', and I should hope live-ins
    would say more --- like maybe " no, honey, I'm just not in the
    mood, i've had a hard day...maybe tomorrow, or next Sunday...or
    whatever..."
    
    As for your question about whether I've ever changed my mind.
    Yep about lots of things, but not about whether or not I want
    sex.  And not about what I think of abortion rights, and not
    about equality for all people, and not about other things.
    But I do change my mind lots about many other issues, ideas,
    people, things, jobs, etc.
    
    Maybe part of the problem comes back to the old 'sex vs. love' 
    argument.  I just don't want sex with someone I don't love, and
    that means don't expect it on the first, second, third, tenth, date.
    If however, both parties enjoy sex with or without love, then
    I could see where it might get more confusing.  
    
    As for the issue of this note string.  I think there are some very
    formal, legal definitions surrounding the whole area of rape, sodomy,
    incest, sexual assault, etc.  Then there are the 'how it feels' issues.
    In my opinion, if both ADULT parties want it then fine, in any shape,
    any form , at any time, in any way.
    But if one of the parties does NOT want it, then it shouldn't happen,
    and if it does, there should be some recourse for the action. 
    
    sorry for being so long-winded!!
    
    deb
    

Violation of personal space is the same as rape?  

Uh-uh, no way, no sir, I just can't believe it.

I've had my personal space unwillingly violated many times. I've even been
unwillingly kissed a number of times. Always an unpleasant experience.  I
have never been raped, but I have talked to many women who *have* been
raped, and I just *can't* imagine the two falling into the same category.
Discomfort at having someone stand to close to you, or even kiss you, if
you don't want to them is just not within 10 orders of magnitude at the
life-long pain and trauma of having been raped (whether that rape is
"date rape" or <ironic laugh> "normal rape".)

I don't care if the definition is legal, moral or semantic.  A "violation of
personal space" is *not* all that's needed for something to qualify as
rape! (Obviously, rape/forced penetration *is* a violation of personal space...
quite a violation, at that.)

Yes, kissing someone who hasn't consented to said kiss is *bad*.  Who will
argue?  But in the same category of badness as rape?  No way, bud.

Why does it seem in this discussion that no one will admit the concept of
"levels of badness"?  Hurting someone else/doing nonconsensual things to
someone else/manipulating someone else is bad.  Is it totally nonsensical to
say that *some* things that are bad to do are *worse* to do than other bad
things?

"Hey, that man made a pass at me!  He kissed me when I didn't want it.  He
even kissed me once after I said 'no'.  Sure, when I pushed him he got up
and left, and didn't touch me any more.  But he is still a rapist.  What
he did was just as bad as if he *hadn't* gotten up an left when I pushed.
Throw him in jail for life!  Castrate him! Execute him!"

D!

There is no word in English that expresses a woman's experience of rape.
The word "rape" is based entirely on the rapist's -- usually a male's --
point of view. Dale Spender discusses this in her book Man-Made Language.
The word "rape" is defined in my dictionary as the crime of forcing someone
to submit to sexual intercourse, and is derived from the Latin "rapere," to
seize. 

That's what the rapist does; it's not what the victim experiences. We need
a new word for that (as Spender argues we need a lot of new words to
express women's viewpoints about a lot of things). I wouldn't know how to
begin to invent one, but maybe a root word meaning "death" would be a place
to start, since rape seems to me to be a kind of murder -- of one's
integrity, one's private self. 

Dorian

Actually Dorian, your note reminds me a bit about what I hear about abuse; in
the context of physically or emotionally abused women. Maybe that's the word
with moral weight we need; something to encompase those as well.
	Mez

    re .14 (D!)
    
    Wel, if it makes you feel any better, D!, I agree with you.  I DO
    believe there are different stages of "wrongness", and I do believe
    that yes, sometimes, a woman can "get herself in trouble" and it
    not be rape.  *NO*, when a woman is raped, she isn't asking for
    it, and it doesn't make it any less wrong, but not all sexual
    encounters are rape, and being a woman doesn't make one faultless
    in all situations concerning sex.
                                    
    
    --kim
    

re: reasonable woman

Actually, I'm interested in this part of the (3rd degree was it?) definition of
rape. I've heard of the 'reasonable man' concept; this must be similar (except,
what do they say when it has something to do with male biology? reasonable
he-man?). Does anyone know how that works? And does anyone have a clue on
'reasonable woman' recedents (I'd be surprised if anyone but Nancy did)?
	Mez

    
    re:.14
    (i'm not sure you were responding to me or not, but what the heck....)
    it seems to me that the same mind set that allows men to make those
    small 'invasions' (the unexpected/unwanted kiss, pinch on the
    ass, etc.) is the same mind set that allows men to commit rape. it
    is a fundamental lack of regard for women and a need or willingness
    to exert power over women. legalistically, of course, that stolen kiss
    is not the same as 'legal' rape, no more than getting shoved in a bar
    is the same as 'assault and battery'. but morally, it is the same
    crime and i see no value (rather, the opposite) in pretending it isn't.
     

    I don't know the legal precedents, but I do know some of the
    language history . . .
    
    From about the 15th century until recently the more common term
    for coerced sex was "violation," which comes from the same word as
    "violence."
    
    A "rape" included the idea of kidnapping or seduction -- for
    instance, the situation where a money-hunter would persuade a
    wealthier girl to elope with him so her father would have to allow
    the marriage.  It didn't necessarily include unwillingness on the
    girl's part.
    
    --bonnie

>    it seems to me that the same mind set that allows men to make those
>    small 'invasions' (the unexpected/unwanted kiss, pinch on the
>    ass, etc.) is the same mind set that allows men to commit rape.

Maybe it does.  But the mind-set isn't rape either.  And while you can
criticize someone's mindset, saying that someone who shares some conceptions
with rapists is equivalent to *being* a rapist is, as far as I am concerend,
way out of line.  "Thought-crime" ya know.

>    >. but morally, it is the same
>    crime and i see no value (rather, the opposite) in pretending it isn't.

No.  I don't think so.  It is *not* as bad to think about doing something as
to do it; it is *not* as bad to be the type of person capable of doing 
something as to do it; it is not as bad to have attitudes that *could* lead
you to do something if it never *does*.

You may disagree with me by I am not "pretending".  I see no moral value
(rather, the opposite) in blaming someone equally for "being the type of
person who is capable of such a crime" as the person who actually does
something that is incredibly hurtful and damaging to another person.

I think categorizing stolen kisses in the same category as rape, without
even so much as qualifing it, trivializes the evil of rape, obscures a
discussion about what rape is, alienates all the men who have stolen kisses
and not realized how bad what they were doing was by calling them *rapists*,
and encourages the concept of a thought crime.

In other notes (f'rinstance, the child abuse note) people are saying that
the magnitude of evil of a crime should be measured in how much damage it
does to the victim, rather than by what type pf person the perpetrator is,
how sorry he is, etc.  Here you are telling me that the magnitude of the
crime depends on how undersireable the thought processes of the perpetrator
are rather than how much damage his actions cause.  (A stolen kiss causing
as much damage as forced intercourse?  No.)

There is a quantum leap between "sharing the same attitudes that lead to
a particular crime" and *doing* that crime.  They are *different*, legally,
morally, semantically, ethically and practically.

D!

    
    re:.21
    i quite understand your point.
    however, when comparing 'stolen kisses' to rape my intention was not
    to trivialize rape, but to maximise the wrongness of stolen kisses.
    just a few notes ago, someone gave a scenario wherein those stolen
    kisses were construed to be an acceptable means of 'convincing'
    a woman to have further sexual relations. perhaps, as suggested
    before, this is just tactics, but to me thinking that the difference
    between the two types of coercion (are we agreed on that?) is one
    of degree, not kind, is a very powerful moral lesson.
    
    by the way, i am only concerned with actions here: the kiss that
    is actually stolen (as in the scenario mentioned above; no 'thought
    crime' there). heaven forfend that we should be censured for
    our thoughts!
     

    
    p.s.
    i never intended to imply that having the same mind set as a
    rapist was the same as being a rapist. rather, that rapists and
    many men (who assume themselves not rapists) share the same
    mind set. mind sets can be changed. the first step is to
    recognize the mind set for what it is.
    

DECWET::JWHITE (et. al.):

  You might want to be careful as you generalize the definition of
  "rape" into things that women can be accused of as easily as men,
  such as: invading one's personal space, unwanted touching, and
  stolen kisses.  Suddenly, you won't be able to lay claim to the
  moral high ground any more, because all of the criminals won't
  be men.

  You may think I'm joking, but perhaps you've never noticed "touchy"
  women, who can't communicate with you without grabbing hold of you.
  Or as Pasquale Gumbo would doubtless say, "be'en kissed by Aunt Soozie!"

  And I don't mean to trivialize this one bit.  But if accidentally
  step on your foot, you don't call it manslaughter.  So why is this
  crime of rape strictly binary to you?

                                   Atlant

>    by the way, i am only concerned with actions here: the kiss that
>    is actually stolen (as in the scenario mentioned above; no 'thought
>    crime' there). heaven forfend that we should be censured for
>    our thoughts!
 
Joe, my comment on "thought crime" was that the heart of your argument that
"stolen kisses *are* rape" (which you did say) was that the mind-set was
the same.  In comparing actions alone, it is quite obvious that stolen
kisses are not rape.  If you look into the mind of the perpetrator, see
that the motives were the same as if it *had* been rape, and then call him
a rapist, then you are making accusations based on what was in his mind, not
what he did.  Thus, "thought-crime".  (Although my use of the word here
differs from Orwell's original intent...in 1984, certain thoughts were
considered illegal to have..you are discussing 'mind-sets', not thoughts,
it's true, but I think the point remains.)

BTW, in the original scenario of "No", "Oh please, <Kiss>", "Well, okay",
I didn't see the kiss as necessarily being nonconsensual anywy.  Saying "no"
to sex doesn't mean she was saying "no" to kisses...given the very limited
information we have about the hypothetical situation, we don't have enough
information to conclude that it was nonconsensual.  It could very well be
that there is a couple who are already necking...he wants to go further,
she doesn't, but that doesn't mean she wants to stop necking...therefore
kisses are in order.

In fact, the feeling I got with that example of a way a man might try to
convince (manipulate, persuade, whathaveyou) a woman to sleep with him
was that the *kissing* was acceptable to the female...it was just that the
man was using what the female had already consented to (kissing) in a slimy
and manipulative way (perhaps) to convince her to consent to something more.
If so, then I feel even *more* strongly that said kiss/attempt-to-convince
was not rape; in fact, in such a case, I would even disagree with your
statement that it's a matter of degree and nothing else.  Such a convince-kiss
would *not* be rape, and wouldn't even require the same mind-set that rape
does.

I do not believe that trying to convince someone to do something is
akin to making them do it.  

Accusing a man who convinces a woman to sleep with him through begging and
pleading of rape is like accusing a pushy salesman of stealing.  (Yes, if
said accused-rapist used threats, then it's rape; if said accused-thief used
lies, then it's stealing.)

Perhaps the term we are looking for here is "undue influence"?  It is legal
and legitimate to try and concince someone of something up to a point.
Past that point is undue influence and illegal.  Perhaps we should be arguing
where that point falls?

D!

(Sorry for the length...Joe, not all of this is to you, it just lead into
some other discussion I thought of as I was typing.)

    re: stolen kisses
    
    Hmm.  If stolen kisses are the moral equivalent of rape then I
    could say that I've been raped, and more than once.  Somehow
    that just doesn't seem to fit.  The problem I see is that to
    say that <less violent action> A is the moral equivalent of
    <more violent action> B is to make morality a binary equation,
    a kind of all-or-nothing.  The way I see it, morality is more
    like a continuum.
    
    Steve

One thing that's pleasant about this discussion is that multiple points of view
seem interested in making sure that society treats rape as seriously as
possible; different folks seem to have different ideas on how to do that.
	Mez

    
    re: .24
    i maintain that the stolen kiss and rape are morally equivalent;
    thus no need to admit i blew it.
    
    re:.25
    as far as accidentally stepping on someone's toe, the key is that
    it's an *accident*. in the 'wanna park?' scenario, the man did not
    kiss the woman by accident. in fact, he initiated sexual activity
    after the woman had said no.
    
    i am quite willing to allow for moral definitions that might indict
    some women of having the 'rape' mind-set. i am also willing to
    believe that occasionally pygmies bumb their heads on ceilings.
     
    re:.26
    'thought crime': again you make an excellent point. the only thing
    i can say is that if he hadn't kissed her after she said no, there
    would have been no 'crime'. the fact is, he did. presumably, he felt
    it was an acceptable thing to do. it is *not* an acceptable thing to
    do. my position is that it is an unacceptable thing to do for the
    *same reason* the rape is unacceptable.
    
    re:.27
    i do not believe morality is a continuum.
    
    
    i'm having that deja vu all over again feeling...happens whenever
    i talk about morality...
    

    re: 29 (Joe)
    
    � i do not believe morality is a continuum.
    
    Could you expand on that some, Joe (or, if the d�ja vu factor is
    too high, give me a pointer to where you've delineated this thought
    a bit more fully)?  On the surface of it, it would seem that the
    women who've "stolen a kiss" from me are the moral equivalents
    of the man who, for example, raped Nancy.  I find this very 
    difficult to grasp.
    
    Steve

    
    i've already said more on this than i ever intended. how to sum up?
    
    i don't see the value of a definition of rape that implies that the
    act must be of a certain level of heinousness before it is 'really'
    rape. on the other hand, i see great value in a definition of rape
    that implies that even the slightest act without consent is 'really'
    rape. i fully realise that the latter definition would seem to suggest
    that there is an awful lot of rape going on. i believe that to be
    the case.
    
    

	I've been most influenced by writers (like Liz Kelly) who 
	advocate looking at all types of sexual violence as existing 
	on a continuum.   I believe she put the boundaries of this 
	continuum as beginning with catcalls, verbal harassment, etc., 
	and ending with rape.

	Others in this topic and and others have spoken of fuzzy 
	boundaries, blurred lines, etc. between which acts constitute 
	"rape".  Just about all examples of what I've read represent 
	some form of sexual violence.

	If I were to make such a continuum, it would look like this:


	(and please let me explain it before jumping to conclusions 
	 about why I put what where)...


         [Continuum Defining Sexual Violence Against Women]

<-------------------------------[...]--------------------------------------->
       ^        ^        ^               ^        ^       ^      ^       ^
 soft porn in  SI's   harrassmt         marital  date    rape   Rape   Rape/
 advertising   SI     at work           rape     rape                  murder
                                VVVVVV
                         all the "little rapes"
 ( obscene phone calls, flashing, menacing staring, unwanted proximity, ... )

	The basis of the ordering is as follows:

	As one moves to the right of the continuum, "society" is more apt
	to recognize and label what is happening to the woman as  being 
	sexual violence.  

	It is not at all necessarily a perfect linear progression of the 
	*impact* the particular violence has on the woman.  If a Y-axis 
	showing "impact on victim" were drawn, the resultant may or may 
	not have an overall positive slope.

	For example, I think it's quite possible for the sum total of the 
	sh*t in advertising and SI to constitute a greater crime against 
	women than the Rape of a woman...  And while Rape can be explained
	away by the woman as a random type of thing where you just happened 
	to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and met up with the
	deranged lunatic who undoubtedly exists per every 100K people and
	everyone and their sister will reassure you it was no fault of 
	your own and a conviction is almost a certainty -- what of the 
	impact of marital rape on the woman who has *no* legal recourse
	whatsoever, who was violated _not_ by a stranger but by the man 
	she loves and trusts, and who is probably so ashamed she will not 
	tell even her closest friends?
	
	Hence, the far right of the continuum contains events that fit
	into society's nice neat definition/stereotype of rape and 
	sexual violence against women.  Variances from the stereotype
	place the incident farther and farther left.  Society and even
	the woman herself is less likely to recognized what happened as
	sexual violence...  "I don't know what to call it, but... "
        or                  "I don't know if I'd call this rape, but..."

							nancy b.

	Sorry if this has been explained already and I missed it,
	but what does SI stand for?

    or the Swimsuit Issue thereof

Sexual violence. Not bad. Thanx Nancy. I'll roll that one around.
	Mez

    
    
    
    The following is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous.
    
    If anyone wishes to reply to the author directly I will be glad
    to forward mail.
    
    Bonnie J.
    =wn= comod
    **************************************************

    This was prompted by 958.25:

    >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.
    
    EXACTLY!! And when the man in question subsequently tells all your
    (mutual) friends about it as if if he had initiated some sort of
    ROMANTIC relationship with you, and you INEXPLICABLY gave him the
    cold shoulder at your next meeting, (this from a man I thought was
    a friend, who I had known for years, who I stupidly (in retrospect) 
    invited to stay for Christmas because he was going to spend Christmas
    alone and I was sorry from him, (and I had borrowed a bed for him, which 
    in itself ought to have been enough to tell him my expectations), and 
    who adopted the oh-so-subtle approach of 'If you don't take me to bed 
    voluntarily I'll wait until you're asleep and come and get into bed 
    with you' and who unfortunately is about twice my weight with about 
    half the brain, need I go on?), well suffice to say that it takes some 
    getting over (over 2 years and counting...)

    Technically, you could say that I 'consented' I suppose, but I believed 
    his threat, I was SCARED, not just by what was said but by WHO was
    saying it. I reasoned that I had drastically misjudged this man previously, 
    and that humouring him was probably the safest policy.

    I just couldn't believe that a FRIEND would behave like this. Unfortunately,
    neither did the only mutual friend I have told about it, which makes it 
    harder to come to terms with - it seems I am regarded as having 'hurt' HIS
    delicate feelings!

    I still meet this person occasionally (like I said, we have the same
    friends) and find it hard to even look him in the face. I don't know if 
    confronting him about it would achieve anything. I would obviously feel 
    very vulnerable trying to discuss it with him, but as things are I feel 
    that he 'got away with it' and mine was the reputation that suffered. It
    still gnaws away at me inside.

    Advice, anyone?

    re: .32 (Joe)
    
    Because I'm interested in your hypothesis, ". . .that even the 
    slightest act without consent is 'really' rape", I'm moved to
    risk being a social clod in asking for information.  (I acknow-
    ledge that you've expressed a desire not to say anything further
    on the topic, but I don't know how to scratch my "itch" for more
    information without asking another (possibly) unwanted question.)
    
    What I'm wondering is if we accept the hypothesis, how would you
    envision the legal system embracing it?   That is, how would we
    prosecute a violent act of intercourse where a weapon was involved
    as compared to "stealing a kiss", particularly if they're moral
    equivalents?
    
    Steve

    Steve, you spoke of women "stealing kisses" from you and how you have a
    hard time construing that as rape.  I'm interested:  where you an
    unwilling partner to those kisses, and did you say "no" to the women
    before they went on to "steal" them?
    
    						=maggie

In a discussion on the stealing of kisses, I think it's important to make
clear whether the woman in the situation described said 'no' to sex, or
to kisses (if she said 'no' at all.)

[In Steve's case, replace above instances of "woman" and "she" with "Steve"
and "he".  :-) ]

D!

    
    as marlon brando's character in 'a dry white season' says, 'the
    law and justice are, at best, distant cousins'.
    

    I wrote this before reading nancy b.'s 961.2, but the two discussions
    seem to fit together. 
    
    Many states are replacing the old definitions of rape with laws on
    sexual assault. These have the advantage of placing the emphasis on
    the assault aspects itself rather than focusing guilt or innocence
    entirely on whether penetration occurred. The laws, usually based
    on model laws put out by some national legal group, are explicit,
    graphic, and more detailed than the summaries I am going to enter.
    
    Note that these offenses are gender-neutral -- they apply to
    perpetrators and victims of either sex.

    New Hampshire has such laws (I don't know about Mass. or other
    states), and if anyone has access to the NH RSAs, they may want to
    look them up, add  comments or even direct quotes, and correct any
    inaccuracies I've entered.

    An age of consent (13? 16?) is also defined for each offense. Below
    this age the victim is deemed unable to give legal consent.

    Simple sexual assault - Unwanted touching or fondling of genitals,
    breasts, buttocks. This is usually a misdemeanor (minor offense) --
    maximum sentence usually a year in the slammer). 

    Sexual assault - Unwanted penetration of any orifice - mouth,
    anus, vagina - by any object or bodily part. A felony -- maximum
    sentence several years.

    Aggravated sexual assault - Sexual assault accompanied by physical
    assault or the threat of physical assault. Major felony -- maximum
    sentence even longer. 

    Incidentally, the term "sodomy" is an old one, and is even
    mentioned several times in the Bible. It refers specifically to
    penile-anal intercourse. But many states generally defined sodomy
    to mean any type of sexual contact other than the traditional
    penis-in-vagina. The term was common in many older state
    laws (it's probably still on the books in some places), and was
    sometimes referred to vaguely as "the crime against nature."

    Bruce

Clarification:

>  And I don't mean to trivialize this one bit.  But if accidentally
>  step on your foot, you don't call it manslaughter.  So why is this
>  crime of rape strictly binary to you?

  I carefully chose my "crimes" here.  Stepping on your toe was
  described as an accident.  I intentionally chose manslaughter,
  a charge often brought against those who accidentally kill
  someone.  Willful intent normally isn't required.

                                   Atlant

    <<< Note 961.33 by SYSENG::BITTLE "nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE" >>>
                      -< A continuum of sexual violence >-

         [Continuum Defining Sexual Violence Against Women]

<-------------------------------[...]--------------------------------------->
       ^        ^        ^               ^        ^       ^      ^       ^
 soft porn in  SI's   harrassmt         marital  date    rape   Rape   Rape/
 advertising   SI     at work           rape     rape                  murder
                                VVVVVV
                         all the "little rapes"
 ( obscene phone calls, flashing, menacing staring, unwanted proximity, ... )


Nancy:

  That's an interesting continuum, but it brings up some thoughts I
  had yeseterday after the noting session.  It seems to me that there
  are other continuums which have (approximately) the same endpoint
  of "Rape that we all would agree is rape", but come from much different
  directions, moved along by much different motivations.

  I suspect one of these continuums might be titled the "Not Quite
  Requited Love" continuum, and would assume two partners who hold
  slightly different impressions of how intimate the relationship
  should be.

  Waypoints (in fuzzy order) might be:

    o Undesired Eye contact

    o Pickup lines when you don't want to be picked up

    o Undesired conversation

    o Undesired non-sensual touch

    o Stolen kisses

    o Undesired hugs

  ...and so on to the more intimate contacts that we're already discussing.


  But you see what I'm saying?  Here, the intent isn't necessarily
  violent in any way, shape, or form.  It's the desire for intimacy
  with the other and the other's rejection of that desire.  Properly
  communicated, the "crime" doesn't escalate.  Improperly communicated,
  we move furtherup the continuum.  (And that thought relates back to
  some earlier notes about "rapists" not being able to correctly inter-
  pret our everyday signals used to limit social contact.

                                   Atlant

    This is a minor digression away from a serious topic, but I find the use
    of the phrase "stolen kisses" in this string interesting (that is,
    kisses to which one party hasn't consented). The older meaning of the
    term came from a time when matrimony was considered requisite before a
    kiss (at least in "refined circles") and a chaperon was requisite
    before matrimony. "Stolen kisses" were willingly - doubtless _eagerly_ -
    shared behind the back of the chaperon, or perhaps behind the shed.
    We scarcely have need for _that_ usage any more, so the phrase has been
    appropriated for a more contemporary meaning, albeit nearly opposite.
    	
    		- Bruce

Some thoughts on "stolen kisses" (*our* reclaimed use of the term) and
who steals them...

If indeed kissing a partner who has made it clear that he or she isn't
interested in being kissed (as opposed to using kisses that are okay to
convince someone to go further) is morally equivalent to rape, or at
least motivated by the same 'mind-set' that motivates rapists, then I
can speak as a rapist, as well as rapee.

Despite Joe White's implication that a woman having that mind-set is as
likely as Pygmies bumping their heads on ceilings, it *does* happen. I
know, because I've done it.  And I can explain what *my* mind-set was in
doing so.

Growing up, I was always taught that men always want sex.  Sex, sex, sex
was all that men thought about, and if a man didn't want sex (implied: with
me), he was impotent, gay or lying.  (The option was that I must be
terribly horrendously unattractive, since men would sleep with just about
anyone with holes in the right places...and in general, I refused to 
accept that this option might be true.)  So *all* men, if they were available,
known heterosexual (and presumed "functional") wanted to be kissed, whether
they said so or not.  Or even if they didn't, they would be flattered by
the attention.

So in pushing my kisses, and other forms of physical "flirting", as I called
it, such as ass-pats or arms around the shoulder, I thought I was really
doing what men wanted.  I really believe I was doing it because I was 
insecure about men (I should really say "boys" here, because this was
primarily in high school) liking me, and I thought they would like me if I
"gave them what they wanted."

For the most part it was true - most of the boys I did this to either
appreciated the gestures themselves or at least were flattered by the 
attention.  Sometimes this was not the case, and it made them uncomfortable.
It made them feel pressured, and they often felt I was too pushy or 
agressive.  I consoled myself telling myself that they just couldn't handle
assertive girls, and must be chauvanists.  But there was also the feeling
that a man who didn't like it wasn't a "real man" (an absurd term to apply
to an almost pre-pubescent sophomore at any rate.)

So I continued to do this, even after people had made it clear they were
uncomfortable with it.  I didn't realize until I even lost a couple of
(potential) male friends by doing this that maybe there were guys who really
*didn't* appreciate that kind of attention.  It was hard to accept (because
my mind first went through the other options, including "I'm horrendously
unattractive").  Even then, it was hard to cut out the behavior (I still
do it sometimes, before I realize I am taking unwarranted liberties)
because that is how I had been conditioned to interact with males.

I think the root mind-set here was a combination of insecurity, a stereotyping
of a group of people without respect for individual differences (in this
case, that all men wanted sex all the time), and an insensitivity to signals
I was getting back.

Is this the root mindset of Rape?  Probably these things are necessary for
the Rape mind-set, but not sufficient. I hear time and time again that 
Rape is an act motivated by hatred at/anger against women.  There was no
anger or hatred in my interaction with boys - just a basic lack of sensitivity.
(But then, 15 year old girls aren't known for their sensitivity...:-) )
Even had I been physically capable, and had the sexual desire to do so,
I wouldn't have wanted to force these boys to do anything with me.  Their
rejections hurt and angered me, but I didn't continue once they had made
it *very* clear they didn't want it (which at the time meant more than 
saying "stop".)

If this really is the root cause of Rape, than it definitely seems that
education is the best tool against rape.  Because I was simply ignorant
and oblivious.  I really, genuinely thought that all men wanted sex.  If
I had been taught less stereotypes of the opposite sex (including warnings
like "Be careful, because men will always try to manipulate you into
sex" implied; because they always want it); if I had been given more
information on appropriate behavior; if there had been more men to talk to
me and explain that there is more going on inside them than Thak (thanks,
Steve) saying "more, more more"; these things would have helped.

So yes, women (or at least girls) are capable of sexual harassment too.
Was I a rapist-at-heart?

D!

    ( D!, could you explain "Thak", please [.47]? )

>    ( D!, could you explain "Thak", please [.47]? )

I wouldn't dare, I couldn't possibly do it justice (when I read Steve's
description I was laughing so hard I cried.)  But I can't remember for
the life of me which note that was from...hey, Jody, is this out of your
scope?  :-)

Just think cavemen...

D!

    I'm not Jody but the note is 865.4 by Steve Mallet(t?)

	It has been pointed out that I did not clearly explain the 
	difference between Rape-with-a-big-R and rape-with-a-little-r 
	as I labeled it on the continuum.

	Rape-with-a-big-R :   a type of rape which fits neatly into the 
	standard "social" definition of classic, traditional rape that
	juries and judges are willing to label as a crime.

	     Necessary factors for this are:

	     o  He was a stranger
	     o  He used a weapon
	     o  He weighs more and is taller than the victim
  	     o  Victim used "utmost resistance" to protect her virtue
		and consequently received numerous injuries, the more
	        serious, the better
    	     o  Medical corroboration (semen found and matched)
	     o  No information in victim's past that could have been 
		used to discredit her

	rape-with-a-little-r :  a type of rape that just quite isn't
	what society is ready to label as an act that the rapist should
	be punished for.  Many of these rape-with-a-little-r cases are
	never investigated because the local police decide they are not
	"founded"; once founded, a careless investigation will ensue that
	is likely to not lead to a grand jury indictment, and if the case
	ever makes it to court, the background and actions of the victim
	will come into as much or greater question than the actions of
	the rapist.

	     Contributing factors for this are:

	     o  He wasn't a *total* stranger  
	     o  He didn't use a weapon
	     o  Victim and rapist are about the same size
	     o  Victim gave up at some point before receiving
		any serious injury
	     o  Victim had a "promiscuous past", such as having
		lived with someone before, etc.
	     o  Victim was wearing seductive clothing 


							nancy b.

    re: .40 (=maggie)
    
    Sorry to be so long in replying; I feel like growling about
    "the nerve of some people who schedule meetings on Friday" but
    1) this isn't "Hot Buttons" and 2) I'm one of those people. ..
    
    Anyway, to answer your questions:
    
    � were you an unwilling partner to those kisses, and did you say
    � "no" to the women before they went on to "steal" them?
    
    I can think of two instances in which I was an unwilling partner
    and a couple of others in which I was a less-than-enthusiastic
    partner.  In the unwilling partner situations, I can't honestly
    recall what I said beforehand (it's been quite a while).  I do
    know that I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't interested
    in a physical relationship.  In one of the other instances,
    I was taken by surprise (in front of lots of witnesses, no
    less�).  
    
    In all cases though, the experiences were a *lot* less unpleasant
    than, say, root canal work.  To say the least, I didn't feel "raped" 
    or the threat of "rape" as I associate the term.  Then again, my
    basis for association may, admittedly, be skewed.  I vividly recall
    the day in the joint when this gorilla grabbed my ass in the shower
    line.   Now *that* felt like the threat of what I think of as "rape".
                                 
    Steve
    
    � Some of whom may be reading this very note. . .

RE:  38 (Anon)

Sounds like a real hard problem.  It's obvious that it's still very
upsetting to you.  You asked for some advice.  A couple of things come
to mind.  One is to allow yourself to feel angry about it.  Whether
this means confronting him or not is something you'll have to
determine.  I try and think of these situations from both sides.
Would it benifit you *and him* to confront him.  Maybe it would.  If
he doesn't know how his behavior affected you and if there is still
alot of things unsaid about it that cause this discomfort when you see
him, it may indicate that it would be beneficial to tell him how his
behavior affected you and how you feel about it now.  If you do this,
I'd recommend stating things in terms of yourself,  "I felt like I was
being manipulated and not respected (for example), rather than "You
are terrible person for having manipulated me", etc.

The only other things that comes to mind is talking to people about it
and getting support from friends, this notesfile, or from a counseler
that you are comfortable with.

Good luck in journey to recover from this event.  Send mail if need
someone to talk to.

john

    RE: Date rape, saying No, etc.
    
    Let's see if I can get a reply in before the network wings away as it
    has been doing lately! :-(
    
    I believe that the inability of many men to accept "No" from a woman is
    significantly linked to the fact that until the recent past, no *nice*
    woman was *supposed* to say "Yes" to sex without at least some verbal
    persuasion!  
    
    Only during the past 20-30 years has it *begun* to be ok (or, if you
    prefer, *PC*) for a woman to enjoy, desire, and agree to sex --
    especially "recreational" sex outside of marriage!  When I was dating,
    you were still supposed to play hard-to-get.  This of course made it
    very difficult for a guy to figure out WHEN your "No" really meant "No"
    and when it really meant, "Coax me a little more..." 
    
    Well, we women have come a long way.  We believe we have the same right
    to sexual desire and sexual fulfillment that men have.  We believe we
    have the right to say "Yes" and even the right to initiate sex.  We also
    believe we have the right to say "No."  
    
    Unfortunately many men have not yet caught up to that message!  When
    college students taking seminars on date rape were questioned, they
    honestly did not believe that "No" always meant "No."  I imagine there
    are some college women as well who do not really believe that a woman
    has the right to say "Yes" and mean it!  And until a woman can freely
    say "Yes," the validity her "No" is questionable (as well as vice
    versa).
    
    This doesn't excuse date rape, but it surely must have an effect on it.
    More and more colleges are having seminars to teach that "No" means "No."
    And when reluctant women find that men respect their "No," maybe
    they will also feel free to say "Yes" to sex -- when they *want* to!

 re: Ms. Smith

 I concur. No doesn't always mean no, and that is part of the problem. As long 
as it continues to happen that a guy will get "No" for an answer but will
occasionally get a "yes" after simply continuing the coaxing game for a while,
men will continue to believe that no doesn't always mean no. Because it doesn't
always mean no. And unless other factors are present, no may mean "you haven't
gotten me sufficiently ready yet." 

 Obviously, body language says alot, and only a fool can really believe that
NO!!! means yes. If you are paying any attention at all, you can tell when no
means yes, no means maybe or no means no.

 And I agree that when women's right to say yes is accepted, the problem with 
the different meanings of no will diminish.

 I, for one, find it difficult to believe that any man can rape a woman without
knowing it (unless she doesn't communicate or one or both of them is overly
intoxicated).

 The Doctah

    I think I understand now.
    
    "Rape: Just Say No."
    
    "No, thanks anyway, but I'd rather not be raped today."
    

    I was watching a movie on TV last night and it brought to mind this
    all too familiar scene.
    
    		Hero takes heroine in arms.
    		She struggles to get free.
    		He kisses her.
    		She turns head away.
                He kisses her again.
    		She beats him around the body.
    		He kisses her again.
    		She melts in his arms.
    		Cut to scene of waves washing ashore on beach.
    		They live happily ever after.
    
    	Sound familiar?
    
    Isn't that the way it's supposed to happen?  No??  
    No wonder I'm confused.
                  
    This scene is repeated again and again in movies and novels.  Therefore
    (if you see it enough times) it must be true.  How do we stop that
    message being sent out?
    
    Bob

    re .54,.55  I agree more education is needed.  The sexuality courses
    required at some colleges are a great idea.  But what if there are
    women  out there who want to be "taken"?  Is that a reasonable excuse
    to the woman who would experience rape?  I don't think that a man can 
    put the blame for his actions on the woman who led him to believe
    this is what all women want.  If he has *any* doubt, he shouldn't
    proceed.  He is responsible for what he does, and who he hurts.
      What puzzles me is even if a man misunderstands a woman's intentions
    up front, I don't see how he could not tell the difference once
    they were into it, if he was paying any attention to her at all.
    Is she crying, just laying there, tensed up, turning away, detached?
    Maybe a good idea to ask her what's wrong.
	Linda

>                       <<< Note 961.58 by PERN::SAISI >>>

>    re .54,.55  I agree more education is needed.  The sexuality courses
>    required at some colleges are a great idea.




	 College is WAY too late for education.  It needs to start in
	 grade school/junior high.

	 I believe sex education should be a requirement...and not
	 just once in the course of an education, but twice (ie, once
	 in junior high, and once in high school)

	 kath

    Kath - 
    
    In principal I agree with you about sex ed.  But I would like to see it
    start earlier than Junior High - maybe as early as 5th grade.  Kids are
    growing up physically and emotionally a lot earlier these days.  I'd
    say that early sex ed., including valuing differences and an emphasis
    on the emotional aspects of growing up (not just the physical), as 
    prevention would be well worth the taxpayer's money.
                                                       
    Nanci

    There was an interview on NPR this morning with the editor who revised
    the Boy Scout handbook.  Information has been added on sexual
    responsibility and responsibility toward women.
    
    Marge

	 RE: Nanci

	 Agreed.  That's why I said "grade school." ;-)

	 Ideally I would like to see...

	 Education at the grade school level.....say, 5th and 6th
	 grade, maybe a couple weeks out of the year.

	 Then in junior high and high school having a quarter long
	 class on sexuality and the ramifications of sexual
	 intercourse.

	 We teach our kids to be responsible drivers in Driver's Ed so
	 they don't ruin their lives in an accident.  Why don't we
	 teach our children to be responsible with sex so they don't
	 ruin their lives in a pregnancy?


	 kath
	 

	 

Spokane, Washington is hardly a liberal progressive community, and I 
did have sex education in the 5th and 6th grades.  This was 15 years
ago.  

I didn't realize most other school districts are still so hesitant to
offer such courses to children.  

Carla

          .0 > Where is the dividing line between amorousness,
          .0 > insensitivity, and rape or attempted rape?

          I would put "stolen kisses" as we've been discussing here in the
          insensitivity category.  _After_ the person who does not want to
          be kissed let's the other person know that by either words or
          action, and the other person does not stop trying to kiss or
          starts kissing more aggressively and tonguing, then I would call
          that assault.

          ... which does not mean I believe that could ever be successfully
          prosecuted in a court of law.  The thought of a lot of the
          scenarios we've been discussing here and in other topics ever
          being prosecuted makes me snicker.

          re: .47 (D! Carroll)

          > Some thoughts on "stolen kisses" (*our* reclaimed use of the
          > term) and who steals them...
          .
          .
          > Is this the root mindset of Rape?  Probably these things are
          > necessary for the Rape mind-set, but not sufficient.

          I think that's an accurate assessment of the mindset, D! -
          "necessary but not sufficient"  (I had a calculus prof that
          seemed to like that phrase :-).

          > I hear time and time again that Rape is an act motivated by
          > hatred at/anger against women.
          * If this really is the root cause of Rape, than it definitely
          * seems that education is the best tool against rape.

          I would have agreed right away with that statement * before
          participating in Sunday's "Walk to end violence against women".
          Now, I am not so quick to agree with it in practice, but still
          agree in principle.

          Why?

          A woman I met Sunday who graduated from a local university last year
          worked as a rape-crisis counselor at the university.  She said
          she would receive calls from women who had been assaulted by guys
          she knew - the very same people who had sat through a seminar on
          "date rape" the month, week, _day_ before, etc...  That's scary.

          <slight digression>


          In George Michael's "Father Figure" video, the scene switches to
          the woman in the black lingerie standing against the bedroom
          wall.  She angrily slaps George across the face. In response,
          he grabs her head with both hands, moves up against her, and
          kisses her.

          The notes about "stolen kisses" remind me of that video, except
          that I'd call what I saw more of an affront to the woman than
          just a "stolen kiss", since she had _already_ expressed anger
          with him when he decided to force a kiss on her.

                                                            nancy b.

    In my opinion education may be part of the solution but we ourselves
    are a bigger part.
    
    In terms of social interaction more is learned from role models
    than from classrooms.  We, as adults, have to demonstrate by our 
    actions the message that we wish to get across to children.  This 
    is true not only for those with children of their own, but also
    those who deal with children in any way, ie scout/guide leaders, 
    big brothers/sisters, teachers, ... the list goes on.
    
    And children will know when one's not being honest, so one has
    to believe the message that one's conveying or it won't get there.
                          
    Bob

Nancy,
You quoted me saying...

          > I hear time and time again that Rape is an act motivated by
          > hatred at/anger against women.
          * If this really is the root cause of Rape, than it definitely
          * seems that education is the best tool against rape.

and you respond...
>          I would have agreed right away with that statement * before
>          participating in Sunday's "Walk to end violence against women".
>          Now, I am not so quick to agree with it in practice, but still
>          agree in principle.

The quote was out of context, and I wasn't sure whether that was because I
hadn't made myself clear, or just for convenience in your cutting-and-pasting.
Just to clarify, in case it was misunderstood...when I said "If this really is
the root cause" my "this" wasn't referring to hatred/anger, but to the
insensitivty and lack of education I referred to earlier.  I meant that ito be
in *contrast* with the hatred/ anger reason.  That is, if the reasons are
"simply" (ha!) insensitivity and lack of understanding interpersonal
interaction, then education is a good cure.  If it is anger/hatred, then the
cure is much more difficult and must pierce much deeper into the mindset than a
college HumSex course.


>	She said
>          she would receive calls from women who had been assaulted by guys
>          she knew - the very same people who had sat through a seminar on
>          "date rape" the month, week, _day_ before, etc...  That's scary.

Perhaps this lends support to the idea that it *isn't* just insensitivity?
I, for one, don't think it is...which means that I don't believe that 
stealing kisses means one has the mindset necessary for rape.

It's also possible that these kids were *so* insensitive that by the time they
took these courses it was too late. I agree with previous replies that
sex education should start *much* earlier than college/senior year in HS.

D!

re. last few ... hatred vs. insensitivity

When I look back on occasions when I've been kissed or fondled when I wasn't
receptive, I bring back feelings ranging from mild annoyance to mind-numbing 
fear.  The situations were different and so were my responses.

In looking at a case of acquaintance rape, my own, where 'no' was clearly 
understood I cannot _begin_ to fathom what was in this man's heart.

Did he hate me? ... only God knows.

Was he angry with women? ... no answers here either. I _do_ know that he was
absolutely livid with ME.  I was punished for the absolute EFFRONTERY of saying
no to him.

Did he think I could be persuaded? ... apparently not, because he never tried
_any_ sort of persuasion.  He took my 'no' as truth and proceeded accordingly.

So why did he ask me in the first place?  To prove that he still 'had it?' or 
that I still carried some grand passion for him?  He always maintained that
it arose from the warmest regard for an ex-love and that he simply 'saw red'
when I laughed at him.

So my experience of 'unwanted attentions' spans a fair spectrum.  My perception
of each and every case is/was that my needs and wants were unimportant. I would
certainly call that insensitive.

I would be very interested to know what education can do to instill a caring for
others.  I suppose one could always take the approach that certain skills that
mimic sensitivity are likely to net greater rewards in the long run ... sort of
the Enlightened Self-Interest Theory.

Education can certainly go far in teaching that 'no' is 'no' and to be neither
said nor interpreted as 'welllll, maybeeee...ask me again'; hence the mixed 
messages may fall off.

  Ann

Ann Johnston (-1)
>Did he hate me? ... only God knows. [...] Was he angry with women? ... no 
>answers here either. 

>Did he think I could be persuaded? ... apparently not, because he never tried
>_any_ sort of persuasion.  He took my 'no' as truth and proceeded accordingly.
[...]
>My perception of each and every case is/was that my needs and wants were 
>unimportant. I would certainly call that insensitive.

Certainly, as would most of us. My hypothesis was that "real Rape" (whatever
that means) is motivated/allowed by a combination of insensitivity and 
*something* *else*, which others have pointed to as "hated of/anger at women"
in general.

We've all been talking about "date rape" as if all date rapes were basically
the same crime.  This doesn't seem to be so.  It seems that rapes where the
rapist understands perfectly well that the woman does *not* want what was
happening (as in your case) and with full intent does what he *knows* she
doesn't want require something more than mere "insensitivity".  

But I believe there are also times when the rapist believes he is just doing
what she wants anyway, that "no" means "yes" or "maybe", etc.  This is what
I call gross insensitivty - meaning simply not having *any* idea what
someone is feeling, what the signals they are sending out mean, not knowing
what the "appropriate" actions in the particular scene are.

This latter type, the root causes of which is insensitivity, born of
ignorance, is best combatted by education.  I mean education of the would-be
rapist.  No, we can't teach them to be caring people.  But we can teach
them to understand that no=no.  We can teach them to be more perceptive
at reading body language (you know, subtle things like kicking&screaming=
"I don't much care for what you are doing").  We can teach them about how
different women feel differently, so that they won't think that all women want 
it so this woman must want it.

Basically, you can teach them to *believe* that no=no.  I think some (most?)
cases of date rape wouldn't occur if the man *really* understood no=no.

The kind of rape *you* experienced, Ann, I don't believe is as easy to 
combat with such education.  If a man already knows when a woman means "no",
and continues anyway, that is a different sort of crime motivated by a
different mind-set.

I'm not sure what that mind-set is, or how to combat it.  

D!

    
    
    In regards to the "Father Figure" Video, which I have not seen,
    I am curious as to what the lingerie-clad woman's reaction was to
    the kiss after she had slapped George Michael?  Was it favorable,
    or did she pull away?  If it follows the grand plan for videos,
    I'm willing to be the woman didn't find him so bad after all.
    
    The mention of the video scene also presents some more of the push/pull
    theories being discussed in here, and yet another reason why "No
    isn't always No" (tm),.  And yet another argument why "No isn't
    always perceived as No).
    
    Again, I have not seen this video, but I
    have seen the same situation in other "dramatic" protrayals, and
    it often presents an attractive woman, clad in provocative clothing
    (usually very little clothing at that), who plays hard to get. 
    The mindset that altho "her lips says no, her body says yes" is
    once again submitted for the general populace to look at.  Certainly
    if the woman is dressed for sex, she *must* really want it, right?
    Even if she is slapping faces, pulling away, etc...right??  (rhetorical
    question mode here).  
    
    Enter real life.  The woman may not be the temptress as protrayed
    on TV, the provocative clothing may or may not be there, the smoke
    filled bedroom scene is absent, but here is a woman playing hard
    to get.  Does she mean it?  Maybe she does.  Maybe she doesn't.
    Oft time she really DOES mean it, but sometimes, in all honesty,
    she doesn't.  The media says she doesn't--the mind-set is that she
    doesn't, and we have a potential situation for rape here.  What
    happens depends on who meant what, who is willing to do what for
    what, and ultimately, who DOES what.
    
    Can there really be any wonder why messages are so often confused,
    even in this day and age of relative enlightenment?  You can't neatly
    throw the blame onto one group or another--you cannot say that "It's
    all the fault of MEN" no more than you can say "It's all the fault
    of WOMEN".  And altho the media helps perpetuate misconceptions,
    it isn't really all the fault of the media.  
    
    I think the whole situation is similar to the issue of cartoon
    violence.  For some time, there was (and still is) concern that
    children watching cartoon violence will turn into violent children,
    or better yet, attempt an impossible stunt because they saw it on
    TV.  Now, I watched cartoons as a child and still do, and I know
    PLENTY of people and their children who watch cartoons.  In fact,
    I feel it is a safe to say that the majority of American children,
    or even children worldwide have safely enjoyed a cartoon without
    falling off cliffs, or blowing up playmates with dynamite. 
    
    Why?  Because these people know the difference between what is and
    is not real.  What is simply visual imagery and what is real and
    dangerous.  They have separated the misconceptions from the truth.
    This is a proven ability of humans, to differentiate between things.
    So why can it not be expected, AND learned, to differetiate between
    "Oh, she really wants it" and "Oh, she really doesn't?"  
    
    A lot of people DO differentiate.  The ones that don't have a reality
    problem, same as children who believe they can paint a hole in a
    wall and go through it.  THAT's where the problem lies.
    
    ---kim (who thinks she may not be making her point very clear here)
    
    
    
    
    

Revisiting the perennial "your lips may say no, but your {eyes,arms,body..} say
yes" has got me to thinking.

The more I think, the more I'm given to believe that what is said is the best
indicator of what should happen.  After all, there are numerous scenarios I can
envision where a person might actual WANT [badly] to be intimate, but has 
reasons for saying no.

For example there are physical things like STD's.  I've never heard anywhere 
that having herpes or HIV-disease made anyone want sex less.  However, saying
'no' can be very appropriate.

Another physical thing that might justifiably impede the course of true-sex 
would be contraceptive issues.  If you haven't planned for the event, it is
frequently foolish to participate.

Then their are personal ethic considerations. If I believe that intimacy would
be wrong for me [and the reasons can vary widely], then it is probably not in my
best interest regardless of the urgings of the flesh.

Certainly communication is important.  If the object of one's desires is
unable to communicate the _why_ of 'no' then prudence would seem to dictate
backing off.

  Ann

    After reading this topic and trying to come to grips with what is
    being discussed re: does she or does she not want *it*...
    
    I saw "The Accused" with Jody Foster this week for the first time
    (the movie about a woman raped in a bar, on a pin ball machine by
    several men with other men cheering on the others) and was particularly
    disturbed by the rape scene itself.  It was very realistically
    portrayed (at least from what I can tell because I have never been
    raped).  This woman was dancing provocatively by herself, then her
    date slow danced with her and began kissing her.  This was in a
    game room with about ten other men in it.  When the kissing escalated
    into heavy passionate kissing, the woman backed off, said no and
    her date (boyfriend, I came into the movie late so I don't know
    which) proceeded to rape her by force, with other men cheering him
    on.  When he finished, another man took his "place" and then another
    one after that.
    
    This woman was clearly enticing the man (we've all done it so we
    know what it looks like) but having sex in front of a lot
    of cheering men in a bar game room on a pinball machine was not
    in the game plan for her.
    
    This brings me to the "communicate the *why* of no" comment in .72.
     When one communicates the why of something, one of two things usually
    happens:  1) the other person comes to understand your meaning (parents
    know about this one, the light goes on in the childs mind and they
    learn something) or 2) you enable the other person to *judge*
    whether your explanation is valid (again for parents, who has not
    had their children argue the explanation).
    
    In the matter of sexual intimacy, I don't believe that one has to
    communicate the why of no.  The no by itself *should* be respected.
     I guess that respect for another person is the paramount consideration
    humans can have for one another.  Some people don't respect others
    (not limited to men BTW) and this is the main problem.
    
    About stolen kisses, you usually know if someone will respond to
    your kiss, by look in their eyes, their face coming closer to yours,
    clues like that.  If they back off, look askance or otherwise indicate
    that the kiss is not welcome and given anyway, I view that kiss
    as assault.  I view a stolen kiss as one in which you might come
    up in back of your lover and kiss them on the ear or some other
    surprise type thing.
    
    This has been a very interesting discussion and I have enjoyed
    following it.
    

    
    	RE: 73
    
    	A Small nit.
    
    	From where I sat, Jody's character didn't really say "no" until 
    	the man had hiked up her skirt, placed his hands under her butt, 
    	and lifted her up onto the pinball machine and began to push her
    	down.
    
    	The scene (whole movie) was disturbing for me to think that this sort 
    	of thing probably happens all the time.
    
    	Guy
    

I do believe pulling away, backing away, trying to avoid repeat kisses, and 
and saying 'don't' [albeit drunkenly] can be construed as roughly equivalent
to 'no'

I believe that you are indeed correct in asserting that the actual word 'no'
came out when she realised what she was by then unable to prevent.  The fact
that she repeated 'no' whenever she had the chance and didn't seem to be enjoying
herself much should also be an indication.

  Ann

   I just saw the movie "Body Heat" this weekend, starring William Hurt and
   Kathleen Turner.
   
   My first comment, irrelevant to the discussion, is "What's the big
   deal?"  I remember people saying how steamy and erotic it was, but it
   didn't do much for me ('course, I don't like Kathleen Turner). Is this a
   "differences" thing?
   
   More on the topic, I was blown away by the scene where she rebuffed him
   over and over.  Finally closing the door and locking him out.  Well, the
   movie would have ended THEN if that was me, cause I would have gotten in
   the car, gone home and had a shower.
   
   But of course he goes back, SEES HER STANDING IN THE HALL IN A MOST
   EXPECTANT POSE, can't convince her to open the door, trys all the
   windows, and finally throws a chair through one, climbs in the house,
   and they proceed to "make it" on the living room floor (apparently
   avoiding any broken glass).
   
   Well, obviously this was not a rape.  But the only woman available for
   comment said, "See, she really DID want him, but she just couldn't say
   it". My question, addressed to her (and you, gentle readers) was:
   
   	"Does that REALLY happen?  Does a woman REALLY put someone off
   	THAT strongly when she really is attracted to him and wants him?
   	WHY?  How in the h*** am I, as a non-mind reading man, supposed
   	to figure that out?"
   
   This was obviously a contrived situation.  But I *THINK* it represents
   something that really happens - at least to a degree.  If it has ever
   happened to me, I never did catch on, cause I was already driving away
   wondering what cold-cuts were in the fridge.
   
   Usually, I hem and haw around on the doorstep for about three to five
   minutes, and when my date hasn't exposed her cheek to me for a peck, or
   tried to in any way initiate a good night kiss (eye contact or
   whatever), I usually give up, and say goodnight.  In fact, when I leave
   without having tried (using my own crude and largely unproven body
   language techniques "Well, uh, gee, uh, GOODNIGHT!"), I usually feel a
   LOT less embarrassed than when I have incorrectly read the signals as
   "I'll accept a type 'B' kiss", and found at the crucial moment that she
   really was signalling for a Type-A kiss.
   
   Now, am I breaking hearts everywhere?  Am I leaving a long trail of
   women (well, not a LONG trail, exactly) behind me sobbing because they
   thought I  didn't find them attractive?  Are they ticked off at me cause
   they did EVERYTHING they could to get my attention, and instead I went
   home and had a snack?  Have I continually passed up all manner of sexual
   invitations lo these many years?  I find this VERY hard to imagine.
   
   But (finally to the point) how on Earth do you go about teaching someone
   the VERY intricate, subtle, delicate signs that would make clear for
   everyone that the "no meant yes".  My Mom tried to teach me to dance,
   and THAT never worked out.  How are children supposed to figure out things
   like "I want to kiss you", "I want to go to bed with you", with nothing
   but a handful of clumsy experiments to go by that come during early
   teens when the glands are making sure that theres no way to concentrate
   on what the other person is trying to tell you?
   
   I was raised in West Virginia, but I like to think I escaped largely
   unscathed.  But comments like "She wants it" are not unknown to me.  I
   guess at the time, I wondered how they knew.  I know now that they
   didn't.  But how is education going to help understand things like body
   language, when we barely understand it ourselves?
   
   On the other hand, if men are taught to react like me (do not attempt to
   initiate a kiss until the other initiates a kiss), does that mean that
   we will have a critical drop in marriage and childbirth in a few years?
   
   Jim (who hasn't contributed much to overpopulation)
   

    Re .76
   
   >But (finally to the point) how on Earth do you go about teaching someone
   >the VERY intricate, subtle, delicate signs that would make clear for
   >everyone that the "no meant yes".  

    You don't, as has already been said about a million times already, you 
    assume that "no" means NO means **NO**. And if she really meant yes,
    well, more fool her for saying no, she'll know to say yes next time won't 
    she, if that was what she meant? 

    I really don't see why the rest of us should suffer (yes, I do mean
    *suffer*) as a result of this "no means yes" assumption just because *some* 
    women, *some* times *might* say no and not really mean it. After all the
    previous entries on this subject that say more or less what I've just said,
    I'm sickened to find this "no means yes" thing still being put forward.

    June.

    June just took the words right out of my mouth:  the *only* responsible
    thing to do is to presume the No means No, and if it really meant Yes
    then the fool woman will figure out pretty briskly that she needs to
    start being an adult and say what she means.
    
    						=maggie

Teach the following on one side:

 - 'Yes' is an acceptable answer.  Say 'yes' when you mean 'yes' and 'no when
   you mean no.

 - If you say 'no' when you really mean 'yes' be prepared for disappointments.

Teach the following on the other side:

 - 'No' should always be interpreted as 'no.'

 - If you fear that 'yes' is intended and you may miss out by believing 'no' 
   understand that if you pursue it and you are wrong you may go to jail.

Now, boys and girls, men and women, I realise that during the transition years
many missed opportunities will occur.  While this is indeed sad, it will be
more than balanced by the descrease in ill-will and shattered dreams.

  Ann

    re: .79 (Ann)
    
    Hear, hear!
    
    Steve

    Re .77
   
    >You don't, as has already been said about a million times already, you 

    Sorry, I got a bit carried away with the "already"s there. When I get
    upset I can't even proof-read my replies properly!

>    presume the No means No, and if it really meant Yes
>    then the fool woman will figure out pretty briskly that she needs to
>    start being an adult and say what she means.

How will she ever learn if there are still men who *will* take her "no"
as a "yes" (or a "maybe")?  She'll get enough feedback from those men to
convince her that her coy methods are appropriate, and that the men who
don't push past the first "no" aren't attracted to her.

The education of men and women in this matter has to happen simulataneously.

D!

(I've said "no" when I meant "yes".  So sue me!  It worked, some of the time.
Perhaps I would be more self-confident today if I had realized it was my
methods and not my [in my mind] inherent unattractiveness.  But how was I
to know, when for every man who stopped when I turned away, there were two
more who would push?  Hell, I wouldn't sleep with any man who wasn't willing
to push and push and PUSH because I figured if he didn't put the effort into
it, he didn't really want to be with me.)

>Hell, I wouldn't sleep with any man who wasn't willing
>to push and push and PUSH because I figured if he didn't put the effort into
>it, he didn't really want to be with me.

 In that case, there may have been quite a few women who were more willing than
I believed. Oh well.

 The Doctah

> In that case, there may have been quite a few women who were more willing than
>I believed. Oh well.

As Maggie said (or was that someone else's note) sure, there will be missed
opportunities.  Faile dcommunications tends to do that, no matter what facet
of life we are talking about.

Fortunately, now that I am an enlightened 90's-kinda-gal, I take a less
subtle approach...like "Excuse me sir, I find you quite attractive, would
you care to retire to my bedroom?"  Or hitting him over the head with a
club and dragging him off by the hair.  (Thak, move over!)

But seriously, for all the women in this discussion saying "Women should
say yes when they mean yes and no when they mean no" how many of you are
*really* able to be that direct about your feelings?  How many of you have
been able to shake the decades of training that says a "good girl" has to
be persuded, that if you sleep with a man that hasn't taken you out for a $60
dinner 5 times and jumped through 10 flaming hoops you're a slut?  How many
*never* act coy with a man they are attracted to, and find his continued
attention flattering, because he'll go to that much work for you?  How many
are never feel disappointed or rejected when a man gives up at the first
sign of hesitation?

I suspect fewer than would admit it here.

As I said, I think the changes in attitude that will make date rape a thing
of the past has to start with *both* sexes simultaneously. 

How about now?

D!

    Re .74, your reply *really* bothers me.  I think there is a BIG
    difference between letting somebody kiss you and letting somebody
    have sex with you.  There are men I would let kiss me that I wouldn't
    have sex with.  I think it's okay to say Yes to a kiss and No to
    anything more.
    
     I've also seen the Jody Foster movie, The Accused, andthe rape
    scene really upset me a lot because there were times in my life
    when I was younger, and out at bars, and had had a few drinks, when
    I know I acted similar to the way she was acting before it happened.
     But, I was lucky and nothing like that ever happened to me.  But,
    I found myself thinking, "That could have been me." and it really
    upset me.
    
    It can be a lot of fun to flirt verbally with a bunch of men, and
    to even kiss a couple of guys.  But, it wouldn't be any fun to have
    to have sex with 5 or 6 guys in public in front of a bunch of other
    guys.  That would be the depth of humiliation and degradation and
    nobody deserves it.
    
    Sometimes it just seems to me that there's a much wider gulf between
    flirting/kissing and actually having sex, to most women, than there
    is to most men.
    
    Just for the record, if anybody's taking a survey :-), I have *never*
    in my entire life, said "no" when I meant "yes."  (The double standard
    about sex always pissed me off anyway.)  And, I'm not that good
    at games.
    
    Lorna
     

re: .84 (D!)

Me. (was this really a survey?).

No, I haven't a clue on how I escaped it (unless it was just by being too wierd
in the first place).
	Mez

>Me. (was this really a survey?).

Well, not really, mostly a semi-rhetorical question to make people think
about the fact that there *are* women out there who interact this way, and
it is *not* just "a few women."  Whether it is the majority or not, I haven't
the faintest, but I did it, and I know I was not that unusual among my 
ffemale aquaintences in this particular behavior.

>No, I haven't a clue on how I escaped it (unless it was just by being too wierd
>in the first place).

Maybe you don't have hang-ups about sex, or fewer than I do (did?).  I think
my own messed up interaction had a lot to do with my own warped perception
about men and sex.

D!

    This movie was based on a real incident that occurred several years ago
    at Big Dan's in New Bedford, MA.  Woman was raped on a pool table by
    several men with a number of others watching (and doing nothing to stop
    it).

    ...and encouraging it.
    	Linda

    I have *never* said NO when I meant YES.
    
    I have, in retrospect, sometimes said YES when I should have said NO,
    but enlightenment comes sometimes only with reflection....
    
    -Jody
    

    Thinking back on my college days, yes there were times when I
    expressed reluctance when I was really interested in doing 
    what my date wanted. I felt I wouldn't be considered a 'nice' girl
    if I gave in too easily.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Re: the Big Dan's rape:
    
    It is incorrect to state that no man tried to stop it.  Three tried.
    
    One customer was simply "restrained from leaving".  He told police
    later that his mistake was that he said he was going to call the
    police.
    
    Two others - one bartender, and one customer, both who tried to call 
    the police- were beaten by the assaulters.  Both required medical 
    attention for their injuries. 
    
    -----
    
    Be careful how wide a tar-brush you use.  
    
    	-Bill Yerazunis
    
          

Jody and Mez, I am not really talking about *saying* "no" when you mean
"yes".  I've never done that.  Ever.  But I *have*: said "Oh, I shouldn't"...
turned my face away when he tried to kiss me...said "I'm not ready yet"...
pushed him away physical when he was advancing on me, albeit a gentle push
(in the "rules" i was playing with back then, the appropriate male response to
being physically pushed away was *not* to continue physically coming on, but
to resort to verbal persuasion)...said "Only if you love me"...been totally
passive and nonresponsive to his kissing me, yet not stopped him...all while
I *really* wanted to do what he wanted to do.

In other words, I haven't actually said no, and I don't consider myself as
having been "raped" in any of these situations...had I actually said "No"
I would have (even then) expected him to stop and respect my wishes.  But
the coyness wasn't exactly "no", and the rules of the game were that the man
could continue doing whatever he was doing until I said "no".

These men were playing by rules that I agreed to, played in, and "won" at.
I don't think the men who play by those rules are rapists.

But it's a dangerous lesson to teach teenage boys.  

D!

    re: .93
    
    I haven't played coy, and said "I'm not ready yet" when I didn't mean
    it, or said "Oh, I shouldn't" when I didn't mean it, or said "I'm not
    ready yet" when I didn't mean it.
    
    I guess I just always thought it's so easy to screw up relationships as
    it is, adding another layer of "necessary interpretation and
    translation" would make it twice as difficult...
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .94, I've never done any of that stuff either.  I agree
    relationships are complicated enough without adding to it by playing
    coy.
    
    Lorna
    

I've ever said 'no' when I meant 'yes' -- never used the coyness approach 
either.  No judgements here, just never a skill I acquired.

I _have_ said 'no' when I really _wanted_ to say 'yes', but that's a bit
irrelevant as I really meant, on purpose and to be taken seriously, 'no.'

I've never said 'yes' when I really meant 'no.' [maybe when I _should_have,
but never when I meant to]

I had/have a habit of asking 'where is headed so we can save 
time' which also means _exactly_  what it says.

  Ann

    
    I remember saying 'no' to sex one night to a man early on in a
    relationship.  I *was* indeed very attracted to him, but needed more
    time to think about what saying 'yes' would really mean.  He took
    'no' for an answer, and I said 'yes' when he asked me for another date
    for the next weekend.  The next weekend after I'd thought about it,
    I said 'yes' to sex with him.
    
    That was 10 years ago, and now he's the only one I ever say 'yes' to.
    

    From one man's point of view (mine), when you ask directly, the most
    likely response is a 'no'. That 'no' does quite a job on the 'ole ego.
    
    Therefore, don't ask a direct question.
    
    The next best tatic is the 'dance around the barn' routine, trying to
    figure out what her wishes/intentions are while not offending her if
    intimacy is the last thing in her mind.
    
    The result is a classic case of mixed messages, and I've had my share
    of these.
    
    Sorry, but I haven't got any answers here ....
    
    					Charlie.

>    The next best tatic is the 'dance around the barn' routine, trying to
>    figure out what her wishes/intentions are while not offending her if
>    intimacy is the last thing in her mind.

 Boy, can I relate to that! Nothing worse than getting ragged on for the
mere suggestion. :-)

 The Doctah

    The most confusing situations I've gotten into in the past (not
    lately-I'm trying to learn) were where I didn't think the fact that
    I had agreed to do a certain thing with a guy - such as go outside
    and smoke a joint, stop for a drink after work, go see his and his
    wife's new house at lunchtime, stop by his apartment to pick something
    up, go over to his house for dinner, pull over and smoke a joint
    - meant that by agreeing to do this, I was actually agreeing to
    have sex.  Then at some point it would slowly dawn on me, ooooooh,
    *he* thinks we're going to have sex, now. shit.
    
    I've come to the conclusion there are some things that you just
    can't do with guys until you get to know them really well, unless
    you do want to have sex with them.  If you do, no problem.  Well,
    not, no problem, but different problems.  :-)
    
    I don't see why people can't just have a conversation where they
    are able to actually come to the understanding that both people
    are interested in having sex.  Discussions of this sort have been
    achieved before.  Just coming out and asking doesn't mean you have
    to say, "Hey, you wanna F**k?"  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
.73>    raped).  This woman was dancing provocatively by herself, then her
.73>    date slow danced with her and began kissing her.  This was in a
.73>    game room with about ten other men in it.  When the kissing escalated
.73>    into heavy passionate kissing, the woman backed off, said no and
.73>    her date (boyfriend, I came into the movie late so I don't know
.73>    which) proceeded to rape her by force, with other men cheering him
.73>    on.  When he finished, another man took his "place" and then another
.73>    one after that.

I only replied to add some missing details which I thought were important.
    
.75>I do believe pulling away, backing away, trying to avoid repeat kisses, and 
.75>saying 'don't' [albeit drunkenly] can be construed as roughly equivalent
.75>to 'no'

Yes, but she didn't do that until after she was on the pinball machine. 
People who haven't seen the movie may have gotten the impression that she
was dragged over to the machine, which she was not. She was kissing the man
    the whole time.

.75>I believe that you are indeed correct in asserting that the actual word 'no'
.75>came out when she realised what she was by then unable to prevent.  The fact
.75>that she repeated 'no' whenever she had the chance and didn't seem to be 
.75>enjoying herself much should also be an indication.

The people holding her down and covering her mouth was also pretty obvious.

.85>    Re .74, your reply *really* bothers me.  I think there is a BIG
.85>    difference between letting somebody kiss you and letting somebody
.85>    have sex with you.  There are men I would let kiss me that I wouldn't
.85>    have sex with.  I think it's okay to say Yes to a kiss and No to
.85>    anything more.
     
Is it what I said or the way I said it????? What did I say other than describing
how she got on top of the machine and when she first said no?

Please enlighten me............

Guy


                   

    re .74, you said, "A small nit.  From where I sat Jody's character
    didn't really say No until he hiked up her skirt..."  My response
    is so what if that's when she first said No.  Maybe that's the first
    thing he did she didn't want to do.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I still have vivid memories of the night that I finally figured
    out that it was ok to say 'yes'.  The man in question had asked
    me in a very straight-forward manner if I was willing to go home
    and to bed with him.  I sat in silence for long enough that he asked
    "Did I offend you?"  To which my reply was "No, I'm trying to figure
    out a way to say yes without seeming like a slut."  Deep sign of
    relief from him, followed by "I think you just did.  Shall we go?"
    Wound up a short-term but interesting relationship.
    
    Prior to that, *all* of the training was 'nice girls don't' and
    I am/was the quintessential 'nice girl'.  It's just that I happen
    to enjoy sex with the right guy at the right time.  I must have
    sent unbelieveably mixed signals throughout my teens and college
    years.
    
    Alison

    Maybe, in addition to defining "rape", we should also make sure to
    define "IT" - as in, "Well, she was asking for IT," or "If she
    didn't want IT she wouldn't dress like that."
    
    Some time back I was in a nightspot with an acquaintance, and had a
    very disturbing conversation with her date. (He was a self-proclaimed
    rebel, fond of recounting his rougher adventures, of which he claimed
    many despite being in his early twenties.) A woman walked by wearing a
    short, tight skirt, and he said something to the effect of "I'd lock my
    sister up before I'd let her walk around like that." Why, I wanted to
    know. "Because she's asking for it." 
    
    What is IT? Is she really asking to be clubbed on the head,
    knocked to the ground, and molested by every man who sees her?
    Did he believe that's what she was thinking when she took that
    skirt out of the closet, or put her makeup on?
    
    He didn't answer, but looked at me as if *I* didn't have a
    clue. 
    
    Isn't it possible, I asked, that the "IT" that she wanted was just some
    attention, to be made the subject of admiring gazes by the men, and
    perhaps the target of interest by some particular man, as in "Let's
    dance"? And if she did have sex in mind, might she not have considered
    it only as an option, IF she met someone she liked, and so forth?
    
    Why did he seem to think that the only options for a woman are
    wearing sackcloth and wanting to make it with anything that moves?
    
    I'll confess that my actual comments at the time weren't quite
    as fully thought out - it took me by surprise to meet someone
    with his attitude, y'see, being so used to a more open-minded
    atmosphere. But I did ask the question, "What did he think she
    wanted," and got no sensible answer; I honestly felt as if I
    were speaking to someone from another planet. And HE probably
    thought he was doing the right thing, trying to protect "decent"
    women.
    
    Sigh.
    
    -b

    Re: .72
    
    >Revisiting the perennial "your lips may say no, but your 
    >{eyes,arms,body..} say yes" has got me to thinking.
    
    Yes, but it's my head that makes the decisions around here, not my
    hormones.  (I feel the steam coming out of my ears whenever I see that
    old chestnut.)

    I wish I could agree with the generation gap argument - ie: once
    everyone learns the new rules things will be great. But remember
    that survey of junior high boys who thought that buying someone
    dinner meant they owed you sex? The message is not being given to
    the younger generation.

    I must agree with those who are confused. I'm a bit confused by the
    messages society has given me. We still have a double standard over
    what you call a woman who's had multiple sexual partners and what
    you call a similar man. Women often must say no when they might like
    to say yes because we are only allowed a certain number of sexual
    experiences before we are called sluts.

    Lorna also brought up a good point. I might be attracted to someone
    enough to kiss them but not be interested in anything past that.
    Maybe their kissing told me all I need to know or maybe I just
    wasn't that interested or maybe I needed to get to know them just a
    little better before I go further. But we aren't supposed to do that
    either are we? That's being a cock teaser if I remember correctly
    from my high school days.

    How can something as vital to our survival and happiness as sex have
    gotten so screwed up that it's used as punishment, revenge, and
    retribution against women? We are judged and found wanting whether
    we are the vicitms or willing participants. liesl

re.105

sorry about the steam, there, but I think that you've paraphrased quite nicely
what I took longer to say in .72.


          Rape is a crime against women.


          Rape is a deadly insult against you as a person.


          Rape is the deprivation of sexual self-determination.


          Rape is a man's fantasy, a woman's nightmare.


          Rape is not a special, isolated act.


          Rape is not an aberration, a deviation from the norms of sexual
          and social behavior in this country.


          Rape is simply at the end of the continuum of male-aggressive,
          female-passive patterns, and an arbitrary line has been drawn to
          mark it off from the rest of such relationships.


          Rape is any sexual intimacy forced on one person by another.


          Rape is all the hatred, contempt, and oppression of women in this
          society concentrated in one act.



          From:

          "Against Rape - A Survival Manual for Women:  How to Avoid
          Entrapment and How to Cope With Rape Physically and Emotionally"
          (excerpts have appeared in Ms. magazine)
          Andra Medea and Kathleen Thompson

          From:

          "Against Rape - A Survival Manual for Women:  How to Avoid
          Entrapment and How to Cope With Rape Physically and Emotionally"
          (excerpts have appeared in Ms. magazine)
          Andra Medea and Kathleen Thompson



                              [During the Rape]

          Stay calm.

          Talk sanely, quietly, to remind him you are a human being.

          If he asks you a question that you can't answer without exciting
          him, say something else, such as calmly, factually stating,
          "You're hurting my arms."

          Memorize the details of his face and clothing, and describe him
          to yourself.

          Think about something concrete and routine, such as what you
          should do later.

          Don't show any pain or weakness if you can avoid it, for it will
          only make him more violent.



                         [Whether to Report to the Police]

          Can you give a clear description?

          Did you know him well?

          Did you do anything which could be interpreted as provocative?

          How were you dressed?

          Do you have bruises?

          Did he use a weapon?

          Did he commit any other crimes, such as theft?

          Do you have the kind of background that will support an
          investigation?




                         [If You Don't Want to Report It]

          Don't take a bath.

          Find a friend.

          Get yourself to a doctor -- you may later decide to report the
          rape.

          Get treatment for VD.

          If you must go to a hospital, remember that you don't necessarily
          have to talk to the police.

          Consider appropriate personal action.




                         [If Reported to the Police]

          Don't take a bath.

          If possible, call a friend first, then the police.  If the police
          arrive first, wait until your friend gets there.

          Don't take any flak from anybody.

          Insist on going to the hospital.

          Give as clear and comprehensive a description of your attacker as
          possible.



                              [At the Hospital]

          Ask for antibiotics for VD.

          Consider your medical background before you accept the "morning
          after" pill.

          Have your friend check all medication given you.



                                   [Later]

          Confer with your friends and local political groups about taking
          appropriate personal action against your attacker.  There are
          many things that can be done, such as singling him out to the
          rest of the community.  If you do this, first make sure you have
          the right man, and second, be aware of possible legal
          ramifications for your actions.

    Well, I have to admit that the readership (the vocal readership) of
    this conference is very advanced in their thinking.  I'd normally
    assume that it was a function of the time we live in, but there were a
    lot of NEVERS and ALWAYS in the past few, so we're not talking about
    recently enlightend attitudes, but right thinking folks from childhood.  
    
    I applaud that, and wish I had know more of you when I was growing up,
    as I'm sure I'd be less f***** up in my own attitudes.
    
    Usually, I find myself talking my potential partner OUT of a sexual
    encounter.  I guess the logic (haven't thought about it much - normally
    occurs in an emotional environment) that if we are turning each other
    on, and I do everything I can verbally (if not physically) to
    discourage it, then we must be close to being on the same wavelength
    That is, its a double check to make sure my incredible sexiness hasn't
    driven the poor woman out of her right mind :-).  I guess my greatest
    fear is waking up the next morning and hearing "You MADE me love you".
    
    At any rate, to head off any misunderstandings, I NEVER assume no means
    yes.  I just get frustrated at the thought that on those occasions that
    I took someone at their word, that I goofed!  But I'll take the
    comments of "no means No means NO" to indicate I have always (and will
    always) do the right thing.  A backhanded compliment, as it were.
    
    *I* may be the only loser, but at least there won't be any victims from
    my own desire EXCEPT me.  And I'll likewise assume that the woman that
    was just waiting for me to push a little harder before she "gave in"
    probably wasn't the right one for me.  
    
    I was mostly registering frustration that such things happen.  From
    this discussion, I'll content myself that I was probably right most of
    the time, and assume that William Hurt got what he deserved.
    
    I agree with D! that in every similar situation (racism, sexism, etc.)
    that simultaneous education is the answer.  Making a law when there are
    large numbers of people (like a whole race or sex) that don't accept
    the law as valid, you just create strife.  
    
    But, I have to say teaching men (to be) that no ALWAYS means NO goes a
    lot further to solve the problem than teaching women not to tease. 
    Teasing makes women entincing, and men frustrated, but its a
    frustration that keeps things interesting.  I'd hate to think that
    everything should come down to:
    
      "Do you want to make love?   \ \ yes \ \ no    Check one"
    
    It would make it easier, but somehow take away some romance, or is that
    just old-fashioned thinking?  But the main point, is "no" means "no",
    whenever it comes out.  Does anyone (here) REALLY disagree????
    
    re: Rape is a man's fantasy, a woman's nightmare.

    Well, I had a partner once where this wasn't true, but I guess she is
    quite in the minority, and besides, her "rape fantasies" were strictly
    symbolic, and didn't come out until we trusted one another to a high
    degree.
    
    Jim
    

  It's clear to me, even based solely upon the replies so far, that
  "NO" occasionally means something other than "NO".  Now, I'm all
  for the new simplified protocol adavanced in these notes, where
  "NO" means "NO" and it's also okay to say "YES", but we have one
  basic problem here:

    Just like the ERA, there's more than one opinion to be
    considered.  With the ERA, there're about 240 million potential
    opinions.  With this question, there are literally billions.
    The notes here represent *MAYBE* 100 opinions, and they're
    certainly derived from a very limited, self-selected cohort.


  We, sitting here in our computerized tower can't simply say "We all
  will behave differently."  It won't help.  We'll run into lot's of
  folks who haven't heard the message, or heard that message and said
  "F*** that...".  And we'll be hopelessly confused, as we try to act
  based on the new protocol.

  Change can doubtless come, but changing anything as the fundamental
  as the primarily non-verbal way that males and females signal each
  other ain't likely in our lifetimes.

                                   Atlant

Same symphony, different movement...

  It's also clear to me that we're going to be "dancing around the
  barn" for a long time.  It's well and good to say "I've never said
  'NO' when I meant 'YES'", but, as one noter observed, the question
  isn't normally put to you in any black-and-white, concrete terms.

      "Excuse me, I'd like to have intimate relations with you.
      Please tell me if that's alright with you, and, if it is,
      just sign this 'informed consent notification and hold
      harmless agreement' that I've had my lawyer draft..."


  I've obviously exagerated in the paragraph above, but in the opinion
  of at least one woman I know, one simply *DOES NOT ASK*.  I guess
  that means one resorts to that continuum that I drew a ways back,
  where one keeps trying escalating actions and watches for feedback.
  But we've already decided *THAT* strategy doesn't work in all cases
  either!

                                   Atlant  

    In re: .111
    
    > changing anything as the fundamental as the primarily non-verbal way
    > that males and females signal each other ain't likely in our lifetimes.
    
    I must differ.  Expectations, behaviors, and verbal and non-verbal
    singalling techniques have already evolved a lot in my lifetime so far,
    and I don't expect this to stop. But the changes tend not to be sudden
    reversals even for individuals; and society-wide change is quite slow.
    But that doesn't keep it from being, at some point, fundamental.
    
    		- Bruce

This question of telling how much the other person is interested is an
interesting one.

I have discovered a new, amazing, radical techinique about discerning
the desires of your potential partner.  Are you ready?



OK.  I'm going to tell you.



How about talking about it before you go to bed!

It's not a bad way to start anyways since communication can be so
difficult.  If you can talk about that, its a good start.

Sometimes, like for example, if they other person is ripping off your
clothers, then talking may be optional.

john

    re: .114
    
    Wow!  That's Incredible!
    
    And while you're at it, MAYBE you can even discuss Birth Control and
    STD risks!  Yow!  How enlightened!
    
    I can't stand it!  So much revelation in one day!
    
    Yeek!
    
    ;)
    
    -Jody
    

    I would add to the excellent .79 the following
    
    It's also OK to say (and hear)
    
    "No, not now, maybe later."
    "No, but keep trying to sell me on the idea."
    "Maybe later, but I don't think so."
    "Maybe, let me think about it for a while."
    "Maybe later."
    "No, and please don't bring it up again."
    "Ask me later."
        
    The black-and-white yes's and no's are easy, it's the
    (unspoken) shades of 'maybe' that get confusing.

    Re: .109
    
    I just couldn't let this note go by without comment. I had to express
    my feelings of horror and shame. To think we live in a society that has
    to publish manuals on what to do if you're raped. To think women in our
    society have to read them and prepare themselves for an act that should
    be unthinkable.
    
    It's come to my attention that four women I know from digital in my
    area have been attacked in recent months. I can't help but think that
    they were all chosen as victims, in daylight, in not completely empty
    spaces, because they were alone and they were female. I, male, could
    have walked through the same space completely unharmed. I, male, over
    six feet tall, don't look like a victim. I, male, wouldn't even think
    about being attacked unless I were in a rough section of town and it
    was dark. Yet everytime women go out alone they prepare themselves for
    battle. They plot strategies to avoid conflict and how to survive it if
    they can't.
    
    None of these women was raped, physically, but they've been raped
    anyways. Any sense of safety, though how any woman could feel safe in
    this society, was taken from them. Their basic trust in the world has
    been violated in a way I can see in their eyes and hear in their
    voices.
    
    Sorry. I don't how to express these feelings very well.  It just seemed
    so horrible to me when I read that note. Isn't their any way to
    overthrow this order of the world? It's unbearable to me to think this
    is the way our society must be.

    re. 117
    I totally agree. Especially being a female student at an American
    University one has to always have an escort at night. This was really
    a pain every time that I wanted to go to the library or terminal room
    at night.
    After graduation I moved to Germany, WHAT a change. Rape is much less
    common there. I could go out alone at night without worrying.
    
    answer to what is *rape* , I think that should be obvious, not
    necessarily from what a woman says but what she does .