Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    An adult seduced a minor (15). Pam Smart has confessed to the sexual
    intimacy.
    This is one of the forms of sexual child abuse. 
    

        Well, she's "guilty" of having intercourse with a teenage
    boy.  Adolescents have wild fantasies dealing in all sorts of
    "black and whites."  Anyone having intercourse with a young
    teenager, especially a person out of their teenage years, should
    take responsibility for opening up that can of worms.
        The boys killed a man, with premeditation.  They need to be
    held accountable for that.
        Whether or not she "commissioned" the crime is pretty difficult
    to tell, from where I sit.
    
    Frederick
    

    If you are having trouble with that concept, reverse the sexes.
    Make the adult a male, and the 15 yr old a female.
    
    
    I am not talking about the murder at this point. Just on the sexual
    'congress'
    
    
    

yes, she is clearly guilty of sexual child abuse.  Is she charged with that tho?

I don't know what to make of whether or not she connived at her husband's
murder.  It seems like the teens have a consistent story, but then so does she
(that is, she tells it consistently and is cool calm and collected).  I'm not
sure that there is much evidence besides the circumstantial kind to convict her
with.

ditto about not being on that jury.  Still, there are worse cases; I was called
for jury duty on the Angulo (mob) murder trials in Boston some years back.
Didn't have to serve, thank god.

    I think that the murder indictment would take precedence over a charge
    of sexual child abuse (or statutory rape perhaps).
    My guess (perhaps somebody is better informed on this?) is that if she
    is found non-guilty of the murder/conspiracy to murder/<whatever the
    charges are> that she could then be charged with
    
    		rape (statutory rape)
    		sexual child abuse
    		contributing to the delinquency of a minor etc
    These charges might well be viewed as 'moot' if she is found guilty of
    whatever it is she is currently being tried for.

    I seriously doubt that she had to twist this kid's arm in order to get
    him to have sex with her.  I can still remember a 15 yr. old boy
    putting the moves on me when I was 21, and he had a better idea of what
    he was doing than I did at the time!  Unless she forced him to do some
    unnatural act that he didn't want to do (which I doubt) or physically
    hurt him then I don't think she's guilty of child abuse.  (Give me a
    break!)  Has the kid complained about having sex with Pam?  My guess is
    he wanted to screw her, and I don't think there was anything wrong with
    that.  It's the murder that's an issue, in my opinion, *not* the fact
    that the two had sex.  Afterall, I doubt she raped the kid.
    
    I don't know if Pam Smart wanted the boys to kill her husband or not
    and I'm, also, very glad I'm not on the jury.  But, I think the kids
    should be tried for murder as adults.  When I was 15 I knew murder was
    wrong and no attractive older man could have talked me into killing his
    wife!!  I think 15 yr. olds are old enough to know that killing is
    wrong, and old enough to decide if they want to have sex with somebody.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    
    I haven't been keeping up on the trial, but, from what I have heard...
    
    I'd say that I can beleive the kid could have taken something out of 
    context that the woman may have said to him.  I do beleive that the kid
    was obsessed and that in itself is hard to deal with, especially if she
    told him to get lost.  I've been there....not as a teenager though.  Is
    she to blame for his obsession?  I can't say for sure, because of what
    happened to me, I'd say yes.  Should she be convicted?  No, I don't 
    think so.  I don't really think she ment for the kid to go and kill her
    husband.  Thats not to say I wrong though.....she would have to be a 
    very smart woman to scam something like this.  What about this kids 
    parrents?  Didn't they know what was going on with thier own kid?  
    
    Yes, child abuse did happen, but, if I was that age, I would have been
    thrilled to have sex with a woman in her 20's.  It's hard to say that
    at the age of 15, the boy didn't have a mind of his own though.  I'm
    sure the boy didn't say, No, don't have sex with me.  Child abuse? 
    Thats hard to say for sure.  I feel the same if the sexes were
    reversed.  Most kids these days surely start having sex with others
    their own age by the age of 15.  
    
    I feel many people are closing their eyes in this case and really don't
    want to hear all the facts.  I haven't seen anything about the
    lifestyles of these boys.  I feel that must have some bearing.
    
    	Hal

    RE: .7
    
    Brian,
    
    She *was* in a position of "moral or spiritual influence".  At least,
    that is how I believe teachers are considered.
    
    I don't see that the fact that the kid probably *wanted* to "be with"
    Ms Smart is relevant.  Most (many?) children who are sexually abused
    *want* to be with the abuser.  Whether it be because they have been
    brainwashed that "this is what you do when you love someone", or
    because they have been threatened with (other) physical harm, or any
    other reason.  *Want* is too easy a term to use.  That is why adults
    are held responsible in these cases, because they are the ones who
    "should have know better".  
    
    E Grace

    First off, SHE IS NOT A TEACHER!!!
    Yes I am shouting because I'm sick of hearing her call a teacher.
    Second, how can the state try her lover as a man but then charge
    her with having sex with a minor?
    
    REK

    re .12, I agree about how can the state try her lover as a man but then
    charge her with having sex with a minor. 
    
    There is a big difference between having sex and being sexually abused. 
    Does anyone know if this 15 yr. old was ever sexually abused?  Maybe he
    just wanted to have sex....every teenager who wants sex hasn't been
    abused.  Which did they have?  Fun sex or did she rape him and make him
    do nasty things????
    
    15 yr. old boys are *not* babies!!!!
    
    It amazes me to think that when I was 21 and a 15 yr. old boy began
    mauling me, that if I had decided to have sex with him (which I didn't
    because he was creepy looking), *I* could have been charged with sexual
    abuse?????!!!!!  Just because I gave in and had sex with some kid who
    was mauling me?  I dont think that would have been fair.
    
    I don't mean to suggest that he seduced Pam Smart but 15 yr. old boys
    are certainly capable of seduction, and not only the ones who have been
    sexually abused.  Most people are interested in having sex when they're
    15 whether they've been abused or not!
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, if I understand correctly, legally there is zero question that
    she raped him. Again, if I understand correctly, it is called statutory
    rape for an adult to have sex with a minor and it is a crime in most if
    not all states. What may vary from one state to another is the
    definition of majority. In some states it's 18, some 16, possibly some
    younger.

    re .14, well, I disagree with any law that says it's illegal for a 15 yr.
    old to have sex with an adult.  I think if they both consented, it's
    their own business.  I think 13 yrs. and up should be able to make up
    their own minds about who they want to have sex with.
    
    Lorna
    

    and if you apply that reasoning equally regardless of whether the adult
    is a man or a woman, and regardless of whether the 15 yr old is a male
    or a female then you certainly cannot be accused of bias; although in
    either case you do have an opinion that is contrary the the laws as I
    understand them.

The rules for whether it was statutory rape ("rape under the law") and whether
he can be tried as an adult are intended to measure different things. We can
argue whether that should be so or not, but in fact statutory rape leaves very
little discretion whereas whether he should be tried as an adult or not has
very wide discretion.

However - does anyone remember the "Teapot Dome Scandal?" The Secretary of State
(?) of the United States was convicted of recieving a bribe while the alleged
briber was acquitted of giving it. The law is a funny thing.

	-- Charles

    re .7
    
    Brian:
    
    In case you were perhaps thinking that I view this example of sexual
    child abuse as more significant than murder:
    
    My answer is no, I do not view it as more significant than murder
    
    I do not want to comment on the actual murder trial because in fact it
    is a trial. I think one of the items being contested is whether Pam
    Smart was involved with the murder in any way. I have no opinion on
    that. I will leave that to the jurors.

	Lorna's responses are the only ones giving light to the
	issues in this case.

	Speaking for myself, I don't live in New England and am
	not glued to the national news, therefore I have never
	even heard of this case prior to the basenote.

	Would someone please explain what allegedly happened?

	Carla

    A 17 yr old has confessed to (at the age of 16, I believe) shooting and
    killing the husband of Pam Smart. It is agreed by all parties that the
    boy and Pam Smart started a sexual relationship when he was 15. Pamela
    Smart is on trial for the murder (in some capacity). Pamela Smart was
    working for the local school system in some sort of (adjuctive?) kind
    of capacity or other. This 'cause celebre' has been discussed in both
    CNN news and also ABC news.

I haven't been following this trial other than whatever is reported on the 11:00
News, but I heard something on the radio this morning which AMAZED me.

The DJ mentioned that the jurors were NOT sequestored!  Meaning that they leave
the court every night and hear the hype on the radio driving home, read the
hype in their paper every night/morning, and see the hype on their evening/night
news (potentially).  Is this situation for real?

If this situation is true, I'm afraid that the decision, indeed, is being
influenced by the media.  And that is a reason for concern.

-Mary Ann

    
    Having just gone to jury duty (however, I didn't have to serve), the
    thing that they kept drilling into us was that if you did have to serve
    that you had to make sure the person was guilty "without reservations"
    or "reasonable doubt".  In other words, if you felt for one minute the
    person COULD be innocent then you had to go with the not guilty vote. 
    
    Having seen bits and pieces of Pam's testimony, I think it's going to
    be real difficult for the jury to completly agree that she's completly
    guilty.
    
    jean

Allegedly Pam Smart seduced a 15 year old boy, and then convinced him (who in
turn got help from a couple of his buddies) to kill her (pam's) husband.

D!

    I do not believe it is alleged that Pam Smart seduced a 15 year old
    boy.
    I believe it is agreed by all parties that Pam Smart seduced a 15 year
    old boy.
    
    I believe it is alleged that Pam Smart then convinced him (who in turn
    got help from a couple of his buddies) to kill her (pam's) husband.

    re .24, you mean both Pam and the boy have agreed that she seduced him?
    
    I get the impression that you think it would be impossible for a
    teenage boy to seduce a woman over 21, and I don't think that's true.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re sequestration of juries: the news last night indicated that is rare
    for juries to be sequestered at all in New Hampshire. Since much of the
    media coverage of the case occurred before the jurors were even chosen,
    and since even the most strictly sequestered juries sometimes hear
    things they aren't supposed to consider (ever hear the judge say,
    "Strike that from the record"?), I can't get too upset about letting
    the jurors leave. I have confidence in my own ability to judge the
    evidence presented at the trial instead of the various bits of dramatic
    verbiage presented in the media, and would hope that anyone who was
    accepted for jury duty could do the same. Heck, if they can't be
    trusted _that_ far, how could they possibly be trusted to determine a
    case that seems to hinge on which side they believe is lying... [This
    is not to say I think I'd be a perfect juror, though. If some really
    damaging evidence was presented, and then disallowed after I'd heard it
    on grounds that I considered spurious, I would *really* have a hard
    time not using it in making my decision. (I suppose this statement
    alone would get me rejected from most juries, wouldn't it!)]
    
    'sides, I've always felt that sequestering juries amounted to
    imprisoning people for trying to do the right thing, especially when
    the trial turns into one of those nightmarishly long ones. Unless
    there's a need for actual police protection (as in an organized crime
    trial, for example), I'd just as soon let them go home.
    
    -b

    both Pam Smart and Bill Flynn agree that they had an affair.
    
    from what they've said, the 'seduction' was pretty two-sided. i.e.
    neither feels entirely acted upon and both exhibit some surprise and
    wonderment that the affair ever started up.
    
    They don't agree on all the details, but neither denies the affair
    happened.
    
    They don't agree on when the affair ended -- she says before Gregg [her
    husband] was shot; he says it continued after the murder.  As they
    didn't invite along an audience, they are probably the only two who
    have the definitive answer to this 'burning question.'
    
    At present she is on trial for:
      accomplice to 1st degree murder
      conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder
      witness tampering ... 1st degree murder
    
    If the state fails to convict on one or all of these, there _seems_ to be
    very little doubt that lesser charges will be pursued both by the State
    of New Hampshire and in the civil courts by Gregg Smart's parents.
    
    What do I think?  I believe she is guilty of witness tampering at the
    very least!  From the court transcripts that I've read, I'd be inclined
    to convict on the conspiracy charge as well.
    
    But, luckily, I'm not a juror -- I don't even live in Rockingham
    County!!
    
      Annie

    For those interested in the case in the Boston area, check out the
    "LIVING/ARTS" section of the Boston Globe (3/21/91). There's a fascinating
    article on the life and times of Pamela Smart. You may just be surprised
    at the depth (and possible schizophrenia) of this woman.
    
    For the record, all the hype in this case merely shows how much many
    of us (the general public) *want* to believe the worst possible
    scenario of this case. Maybe after all the hoopla generated by the
    Stuart case, we generally tend to believe the worst in people, now,
    but if you read the article, you may be surprised to find out that
    these are *all* real people like you and me on trial here...and that's
    the scariest part of all.

Lorna, I may be wrong but I believe that statutory rape laws are designed to
protect minors under the age of consent, and are based on the concept that
such a minor is considered to be _legally_ incapable of informed consent to
engage in sex with an adult.  This protects (or attempts to protect) hormone-
drenched teens from being manipulated by legally (and nominally) competant
adults.  The issue is _not_ whether the boy wanted to have sex with the woman.
The issue is whether he was capable, at that age, of making a responsible
choice.  Legally, he was not, just as legally speaking a girl of the same age
cannot responsibly choose to bed a 30 yr old man.  And legally, the adult is
held responsible in these cases, because nominally speaking the adult should
know this.

Now the fact that some folks are more mature at 5 than others are at 50 has
little to do with how the law must view children as worthy of protection from
manipulative or cynical or even well-meaning adults.

    re .29, I understand that is the law.  I was just saying that I
    disagree with the law as it exists.
    
    (I guess there's no law to protect lonely, bored adults from
    "hormone-drenched teens", huh?)  There's two sides to every story and I
    just don't think that in matters involving teenagers and adults that
    the teenagers are always pure and innocent and the adults always evil.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE:.12
    
    >First off, SHE IS NOT A TEACHER!!!
    
    Please forgive my error, REK, this was what was originally conveyed. 
    Heavens!  I made a mistake!
    
    >Yes I am shouting because I'm sick of hearing her call a teacher.
    
    
    I don't care if you are sick of it, I don't appreciate being shouted
    at.
    
    
    
    E Grace
    
    

Mmmm, I get your point Lorna, but when I think of the real harm inflicted
by adults on so many children, I'd much rather have the law as it is.
If it's difficult for an adult to say no to a child, imagine how difficult
it can be for a child to say no to an adult.

Kathy

    I think by far the most damaging evidence I've heard is the tape
    recorded stuff she told to that teenage girl who they set up to testify
    against her.
    
    -Jody
    

    I agree with Lorna 100% (the age of 16 might have been appropriate a
    couple of generations ago, but I don't find it correct in today's
    world).  But that's neither here nor there.
    
    The Boston Herald, yesterday I believe, had a front page that would
    have done the British tabloids proud.  One by-line talked about the
    "Metal Maiden" and how she wasn't in the least remorseful.  The other
    headline was something about how she didn't shed a tear during the
    trial.  They already decided (dare I say before the trial even
    commenced?) that she was guilty and was using the paper as a means of
    persauding people that this was the case.  I find that type of lurid
    reporting to be positively gross, and if I were a juror and
    accidentally saw that headline might be very well persuaded to consider
    her innocent (as a knee-jerk reaction).
    
    Jim

    
    
    She may be guilty of many things, but she didn't pull the trigger.
    

    re:  13 and up
    
    To imply that my hormone drenched, slightly gangly, brace-faced, giggly
    14 year old daughter is old enough to consent to have sex with an
    "adult" or any other member of the animal kingdom is totally absurd.
    The line is drawn arbitrarily on purpose, so that minors are not
    pummelled in court by lawyers trying to prove "they wanted it".  
    You may feel that the line is drawn arbitrarily high.  I don't.
    An adult is protected from abuse by a minor by the same laws that
    protect an adult from abuse by another adult.  A minor may face
    different penalties, but otherwise the laws are the same.  If a woman
    is raped by a 15 year old boy, then he raped her.  If a woman is seduced 
    by a 15 year old, then she raped him.  Proving that, one way or the
    other, I'll leave as an exercise for the jury.  :^)
    
    And by the way, jurors are generally admonished not to watch TV, read
    newspapers or discuss the trial with others, whether they are
    sequestered or not.
    
    					- Vick
    

    I thought it ironic that Pam Smart allegedly used the same tired phrase
    that teen-age boys have used for years:
    
       "If you loved me, you would prove it by ..."
    
    In this case, she wasn't talking about sex, but rather murder.
    
    I'm willing to bet that one of the reasons that the jury isn't
    sequestered is because the state doesn't want to shell out the $$.
    By the way, if they don't reach a decision today, they are going to
    stay over tonight.
    
    judy

    Lorna & Jim and probably others

    To those of you who seem to be downplaying the inequality in the
    relationship of a 15 year old boy to a 21 yr(when it happened?) old
    woman. What is your response if the genders of the two parties were
    reversed.

    re .38, my response would be the same.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .25
    
    <I get the impression that you think it would be impossible for a
    <teenage boy to seduce a woman over 21, and I don't think that's true.
    
    Not at all! (And I feel that trying to structure the argument in such
    absolutist terms is disingenuous)
    
    There are -in my opinion-  many, many many more 15 yr old boys
    who have been seduced by adult women than there are adult women who
    have been seduced by 15 year old boys. Just as there are many many more
    15 yr old girls who have been seduced by adult men than there are adult
    men who have been seduced by 15 yr old girls.
    
    Now I really wish you would address that, so I can find out whether I
    am wasting my time even reading what you write.

    re .40, in what way do you want me to address the seducing of 15 yr.
    olds by adults?  I realize it gets complicated.  There's a fine line
    between seduction and persuasion, too.  I might think it's slimey for a
    30 yr. old to seduce a 15 yr. old, but that doesn't mean it should be
    against the law.  
    
    I've never experienced a combination of adult/teenage sex myself ( from
    either side) so I don't have any personal experience, other than the
    creepy 15 yr. old trying to seduce me when I was 21.  (He was
    unsuccessful!)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .41
    
    My impression is that you have been down playing the significance of
    the inequality between a 21 yr old woman and a 15 yr old man. You seem,
    in my opinion to be pooh poohing his 'weakness' vis a vis an adult 
    (e.g. in .8 you said I seriously doubt that she had to twist his arm)
    
    My further impression from lots I have read in the past is that you
    would have had a VERY different reaction had it been a 15yr old girl
    and an adult male.
    These are MY impressions, i have been wrong before.
    
    If I am wrong on either or both of those points, let me know.
    If I am right, let me know.
    
    
    				herb

    E, I didn't mean to shout directly at you, I was shouting to the
    world, please don't take it personally.... Even the local papers are
    calling her a teacher....

    REK

 She was a media coordinator which is like a librarian only with more
modern equipment. She was in a role that put her in a position of power
and authority over groups of children. That's pretty close to being a teacher,
especially when this happens at a school.

 She's a smart cookie. Her contigency for the chance that she might eventually
get caught was to be careful to make it as much an issue of credibility as she 
could (as she stated on the tapes) "Who are they going to believe, 15 year olds
or me, a professional..." She planned it pretty well. Except for the tapes...

    Re: Herb.  It makes no difference to me what the gender of the younger
    person is.  I think 12 or 13 is a more reasonable age.
    
    Jim

    re .42, Herb, you're wrong in regard to your assumption as to gender.
    
    You're right that I don't think there's a significant difference
    between 15 yr. olds and 21 yr. olds when it comes to deciding to have
    sex or not.  I think it depends more upon the individuals than it does
    on age or gender, so I think each case would have to be considered
    individually.
    
    Lorna
    

    As long as you both understand that it is an opinion that is contrary
    to law...
    I will leave it at that.
    
    
    
    				herb

    Actually, I'm not sure that it is against the law.  Different states
    have different "age of consent" laws.  What is New Hampshires?  I also
    thought that there were a number of Southern states that had the age of
    consent being 14 or thereabouts.
    
    Jim

    Jim,
    
    See reply .7
    
    E Grace

"See reply .7" is fine, but Brian, where did you get your information? 
Far from being able to "recall" that the age is 16 in NH, I've
specifically heard that it is younger, and that it is different for
males and females.  Unfortunately, I have no documentation for this either.

    Sharon

    I just spoke to the Nashua N.H. police. I was told that the age of
    consent is 16 for both males and females. I was also told that below
    that age, sexual intercourse is statutory rape.
    
    
    
    				herb
    

    So Pamela Smart has admitted in sworn testimony, that she has raped
    Willian Ryan.
    

    re .52, so, she raped a murderer...my heart bleeds for him...poor
    baby... They're both slime for killing her husband, regardless of the
    sex bit.
    
    Lorna
    

    How does a woman rape a man anyway?
    
    Lorna
    

    	Joe and Andy (Boston radio 98.5) had listeners call in
    	and give their verdict/opinion/whatever this morning.
    
    	One woman said: "It's too bad Charles Stuart jumped off
    	the bridge. He and Pam Smart would be right for each
    	other."
    
    	Scott

    
    re .54 - is this a trick question?  If not, the obvious answer
    to "how does a woman rape a man?" is "the same way a man rapes
    a woman!".   

I don't know who did what in this case nor do I want to spend my
energy speculating about it.  I have no desire to appoint myself
backseat judge, jury, jailer, or executioner.

I pray that all the people involved in this case find and end to their
suffering and are able to get on with their lives.  If they are
guilty of wrongdoing, I hope they are able to face that and heal
themselves and make compensation as best and however they can (if
they can) and serve the appropriate punishment.

I pray that the victim's families grief heals and that they are able
to get on with their lives again.

I pray for the spirit of the victim who has left his current form.

john

    Announcement just came on the radio. Pamela Smart guilty of all charges

    Even though this is a notes conference, wouldn't it be more fair to
    refer the the defendants as "alleged murderers" until the jury actually
    makes a decision?  I cannot help but feel uncomfortable when I am
    confronted with trial by personal opinion.  
    
    Barb

    Yeah, Herb, our notes must have crossed paths;)
    
    Barb

    The jury just declared her guilty of all three counts.  The jurors were
    polled on each count.
    
    Greg Smart's parents showed a lot of emotion--cheered and cried.  Pam
    Smart and her parents did not show any emotion at all (from the back
    anyway, which is where channel 9s cameras were).
    
    She was sentenced to life without parole on one count.  Then her lawyer
    got a 30 day stay to put in her appeal.
    
    judy

    re .65, re .54, no, it wasn't a trick question!!!!!
    
    I really don't know how it would be determined that a woman had raped a
    man.  I mean, did she stick something somewhere, or did she hold him
    down while she sat on something or what?  I don't see that it would be
    quite as simple as a man raping a woman, or a man raping another man
    myself.  But, then, I'm not especially knowledgeable on the topic.
    
    Lorna
    

    Please folks, can we avoid personal attacks and stick to the topic?
    
    Thanks

    
    The verdict is in
    
    GUILTY on all 3 counts!
    
    bonnie

Lorna - the rape was statutory. If you convince a 15 year old boy to have sex
with you then, under the law, you have raped him.

There are also ways for women to rape men, but they are not germane and they
are very very rare. I know of exactly one case, and know of that only by
newspaper. I know of many cases of the converse from knowing the victims.

	-- Charles

            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB100:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 741.27                      Pam Smart Trial                        27 of 76
RUTLND::JOHNSTON "therrrrrre's a bathroom on the ri" 31 lines  21-MAR-1991 14:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    			.
    			.
    			.
    
    At present she is on trial for:
      accomplice to 1st degree murder
      conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder
      witness tampering ... 1st degree murder
    
    If the state fails to convict on one or all of these, there _seems_ to be
    very little doubt that lesser charges will be pursued both by the State
    of New Hampshire and in the civil courts by Gregg Smart's parents.
    
    What do I think?  I believe she is guilty of witness tampering at the
    very least!  From the court transcripts that I've read, I'd be inclined
    to convict on the conspiracy charge as well.
    
    But, luckily, I'm not a juror -- I don't even live in Rockingham
    County!!
    
      Annie

    I'm home sick and have on the news.  Pam was found guilty of
    conspiracy, accomplice to a murder, and tampering w/ a witness (
    whatever the third one was).

    Sue

    re: Lorna
    
    Slightly graphic sexual definition follows FF.
    
    
         I don't know legal definitions in all areas, but in at least 
    a couple of locations rape *of* a woman is partially defined as when 
    the male's penis penetrates the LABIA of the female.  Using this 
    strict definition, then woman to male rape could use the same 
    criteria.
         Male to male rape, woman to woman rape present other obstacles...
    
         Keep in mind that rape is considered an action of violence, not
    a sex act.   How this dovetails with the *crime* of rape, I am
    not familiar.
    
    Frederick
    
    
    Frederick
    

    I recall, a few years back, being shocked by Dear Abby, of all people.
    A reader wrote in, quoting a news story about two women tying up, and
    raping a man. The reader wanted to know how a man could be raped.
    
    Abby's response was "I guess he rose to the occasion".
    
    -roger
    
    

    I tried to rape a man once, telling him it was ok cuz it was 
    "not germane", but that didn't seem to make a difference.  He was 
    afraid of getting pregnant anyway.  ;-)    (Thanx, Charles, for the
    joke fodder).
    
    Sandy-who's-feeling-a-little-'soapboxy'-today
    
    PS: and who said feminists didn't have a sense of humor???  ;-)  ;-)
    

    
    When will the miniseries be out?
    
    D.

    
    	Well, let's see, the Charles Stuart movie only took
    	about a year didn't it?
    

I was just saying last night - this case has all the elements
necessary for a made-for-tv movie:  illicit sex and gratuitous violence.

    WBZ radio this morning was commenting on how they could hear the
    Current Affair sound bite every time Pam Smart's name was mentioned.
    Even before they demonstrated it, I realized that in fact, that
    had been going through my head on a fairly consistent basis the
    last few days.  The TV "faction" possibilities in this one are somewhat
    stomach-churning.
    
    Alison 

    yes, well, Cecilia Pierce already has the $100K [or the check's on it's
    way] for this particular tv-movie deal.
    
    the deal was cut before the trial had begun and, no doubt, the writers
    are busy little bees right now
    
    I forget the network, but plan _not_ to be watching this gem when it
    hits the sweeps -- I'm betting this November, February at the latest.
    
      Annie

    
    	My guess is ..... end of JULY 1991.  Maybe sooner......
    

    Yesterday's issue of the Fosters_Daily_Democrat, a newspaper located on
    the seacoast of NH, had an article devoted to the trial.  It also
    included a front-page photo of Pam Smart in a bathing suit.
    
    I think it stinks that the paper is trying to make money off of Pam in
    this way.  What could her being in a bathing suit have to do with the
    trial itself?
    
    judy
      

    ALL the shots of Pam in the bikini were shown on TV news last night.
    What they had to do with the trial was that she showed those shots to
    the 15 year old as part of the seduction.  - Vick

On WGIR (or was it FNX?) they had a call-in last night about the case.
One woman called up and said the only reason the case was such a big deal
was because it was a *woman* responsible for the death (directly or indirectly)
of a *man*. The other way around happens all the time and it is no big news.
Unfortunately, they didn't put her (the woman who called) on the air, but
the DJ (who disagreed with her) summarized what she said, and then asked for
callers to refute (or agree with) her.

D!

�                       -< is it cause Smart is a woman? >-

    (That title reminds of a silly Beach Boys song, "Love Is a Woman"...)
    
    I'd get more particular and say that much of the flurry is because the
    story, as popularly told, features:
    
    	- An evil scheming manipulative femme fatale, physically weak
    but emotionally all-powerful
    	- A helpless tool of a male with no will-power once sex reared 
    its ugly, well, you know
    
    ... both of which are stock characters in myth, trash, film noir, and
    gossip since way back when.  It's impossible for the media to resist
    any "real life" story which can be made to look like a fictional
    clich�.  Heck, the TV movie writes itself!
    
    Of course, the popularity of these stock characters has much to say
    about the workings of sexism, but that would be a rathole, and I would
    NEVER rathole....  (: >,)
    
    Ray

<The other way around happens all the time and it is no big news.
    
    
    Don't think i've ever heard of a case of a man seducing a 15 year old girl
    and getting her to murder his wife. 
    Personally it feels totally incomprehensible. Sure lots of men seduce
    15 year old girls but...

    Back, a few where I questioned the bikini-clad Pam on the front of the
    newspaper...
    
    The seacoast paper did not discuss the fact that Pam used the photos to
    lure Bill into a relationship.  I still think it was improper of them
    to use the photo in the way that they did, given that they did not
    explain the relevance of the photo.
    
    judy

    I wish I looked good enough in a bathing suit to be able to make a 15
    yr. old want to have sex with me just by seeing a photo of me in the
    suit!  I haven't seen the photos but ol' Pam must be pretty hot
    looking.   (Course I don't want to kill anybody...I'd only be
    interested in the seduction aspect!)
    
    My basic opinion is that it was terrible that she wanted to kill her
    husband, but that the fact she had sex with the kid was irrelevant.
    
    Lorna
    

    There have been some really tacky radio call-in shows asking if she
    should be put in jail or not.
    
    One guy called in and said, "If she'd have sex with a 16-year old, then
    she must be guilty."
    
    My translation was, "If she's a slut, she must be a murderer."
    
    NOTE, NOTE, NOTE:  I'm not calling Pam a slut, only that's how I
    interpreted his comment.  
    
    There sure are a lot of stupid people out there.  
    
    judy
    
    P.S.  Lorna, I think it's easier to look great in a bathing suit when
    you are 22 years old.  I remember the good old days of pre-cellulite
    living.

    
    
    	According to the news this morning, Pam may be back in court
    	for a pre-trial hearing.  She supposedly talked to an inmate
    	about getting Cecelia Pierce killed.
    
    	JJ
    

    
    	re: -1
    
    	Sorry to have offended you!  Pamela should be back in court
    	next week....
    
    	JJ
    

	Not that I mind using Pamela, but at least *I* recall
	lots of references to "Chuck Stuart"...

				Tom_K

    > we didn't refer to Charles Hinckley as Chuck.
    
    Now why would we do that :-)
    
    Mary

    That's okay, -d, I'm one of those people who can't spell a_comedy_shuns
    
    Mary

    re. 98
    
    	Please give you sensitivities a rest, calling her Pam is not now nor
    will it ever be sexist ( only in your mind).
    
    
                            Wayne

    Pamela Smart's preferred name is "Pame", not Ms. Smart, Mrs. Smart,
    Pam or Pamela........
    
    The pictures in the newspapers were evidence from the trial. Along with
    the pictures of the candlestick holder, etc. 
    
    The truly sick stuff are the jokes. Also the T-shirts of Pame in a
    bikini with a bullet hole stating, "I dated Pam Smart". Another one
    shows her in the bikini on top of a casket, "I wouldn't be caught dead
    dating Pam Smart".
    
    K

    > How about if you show a little sensitivity and accommocdate my problems
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    Mary

    re: .82
    
    I find your remark very offensive.  I'm surprised no-one else has
    commented.
    
    As to the trial, we get very few details in Australia (just
    sensationalism) but it does *seem* to be a very unfair sentence.  I
    heard that it is 30 years with no parole, is this right?

    The sentence was life in prison without parole.  - Vick

    
    
    RE: .108 (about .82)
    
    The author said they were feeling "a little soapboxy".  Interestingly
    enough, as a moderator of Soapbox, a note like that would have been
    deleted immediately by me.
    
    kath
    
    

Context is everything.  Reading it now, a week later, I couldn't even
remember Sandy's original context; but skipping back to Charles' note,
to which she had referred, provided that context.  So as usual, Sandy
doesn't make nice, doesn't provide a spoonful of sugar to make her
opinions any easier for us to swallow.  So what- her point is legitimate,
and she told us long ago she wasn't going to pay mind to the language
cops, anyway (it was in V2, but I haven't forgotten.)  If a forcefully
stated opinion like that would be deleted in soapbox, perhaps I begin
to understand all the complaints about how tame soapbox is these days.

DougO

    
    
    >>........her point is legitimate
    
    Have I missed something, what was her point?
    
    

Re .110
    
    Kath,    
    
>    RE: .108 (about .82)
    
>    The author said they were feeling "a little soapboxy".  Interestingly
>    enough, as a moderator of Soapbox, a note like that would have been
>    deleted immediately by me.
    
    
Why? We all get to feeling a little soapboxy at times..don't we?
    
    Don
    *8-)    
    kath
    
    

>    Have I missed something, what was her point?

You want me to spell out what *I* got from Sandy's joke?  Thanks a bunch.
Last time I got into interpreting Sandy out loud I wore my ears pinned 
back for weeks (this was over two years ago, and if you're nosey and ask
politely I'll give you the reference.)  So I know better than to claim to
know what her point is.  But I will tell you what *I* got from it.

Charles had just defined "statutory rape".  He went on to say...

.77> There are also ways for women to rape men, but they are not germane 
     and they are very very rare.

Sandy's reply...

.82>                     <Take with a mole o' sodium...>
>
>    I tried to rape a man once, telling him it was ok cuz it was 
>    "not germane", but that didn't seem to make a difference.  He was 
>    afraid of getting pregnant anyway.  ;-)    (Thanx, Charles, for the
>    joke fodder).
>    
>    Sandy-who's-feeling-a-little-'soapboxy'-today
>    
>    PS: and who said feminists didn't have a sense of humor???  ;-)  ;-)

ok, I see a reference to taking it with a grain of salt, the reference to
"joke fodder", and three smileys ;-), as well as the altered signature and
the postscript.  I've also read Sandy many times before and, ok, lets think
about context.  What do the phrases "tried" and "telling him...but that 
didn't seem..." imply?  That in Sandy's attempt to "rape a man" she sought
permission first, ie, this sounds like a classic date rape defense...that
it was a seduction scenario instead, and the guy reneged after, calling it
rape, or refused in the first place.  Do these sound ludicrous?  That Sandy
is admitting to what a guy would call a date rape, afterwards?  Or that she
tried but her "not germane" explanation (not force, an EXPLANATION) wasn't
good enough to make the seduction succeed?

They're supposed to sound ludicrous.  When you think about the contradictions
inherent in the scenario Sandy sketches in so few words, you can't help but
realize that with Sandy as the "rapist", the scene isn't a rape.  Perhaps it
helps that I know Sandy isn't a big bruiser.  The point, as I see it (darn it,
don't I know better than to say this? I guess not) is that when Charles said,
and without humor because its is a serious subject, that for a woman to rape
a man is possible but very very rare, Sandy decided to emphasize just how rare
it is by sketching the scenario most commonly experienced by a female victim
of rape (date rape) and show with a role reversal how unlikely it is for a man
to have the same experience.  She said it in fun, but her point, as I got it, 
is that rape is committed by men against women, not the other way around.  

DougO

    Just a semi related comment to this string. It didn't take Hollywood
    long. This week's Jake and the Fatman's plot is: "A beautiful woman
    gets her underage lover to try and kill her current boyfriend, Jake
    Styles." Close enough for me.
    
    Phil

    
    	Are you serious?  I love Jake and the Fatman although I 
    	don't get to watch it that often.  Pretty sad, actually.
    

    Yes Judy, I'm serious. I saw it Monday night. (The commercial, not the
    show). Yes it is sad.
    
    Phil

    
    	My question was really rhetorical but thanks for the reply, Phil.
    	Actually I'm surprised none of the other TV series' have hit upon
    	it yet.
    
    	JJ