Roofie Rape
Benjamin Monreal
I got this from somebody who seemed to be taking it _very_ seriously. As
for me, I'd list this one right between LSD-stickers and Good Times viri.
Anyone else heard of this? Any truth/falsehood reports?
-Ben Monreal
begin forwarded message----------------------------------
This is actually an important message! Be careful!
This forwarded message is about the drug Rohypnol. For those of you
unfamiliar with it (as I was), it is a powerful benzodiazepine whose non-
brand name is Flunitrazepam (illegal in the U.S.). It is being used by
evil men toward evil ends, so beware strange men offering drinks. Read on.
Keith
Keith Burton
Department of Psychology
University of Arizona
kbu...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu
I know this message is long, and I'm sorry if I bothered anyone by
sending it to you. I just thought what was discussed in this article was
important enough to make all of you aware of what's out there. It's a
very disturbing account of what is taking place in America, so if you are
bothered by the degradation and moral breakdown of individuals in our
society, stop reading now. For the rest of you, prepare to be shocked.
I thought 8 years of watching HBO, USA, and Showtime late night had
desensitized me to the problems of society, but even I was bothered by
what is described in this article.
---
This is a very important article published Feb 96 about a drug that has
been used in rape cases because it causes the victim to FORGET the crime.
This popularity of this drug has major implications for college students,
especially. Please take the time to read this and forward it to
EVERYONE!
Sarah Clifton
**************************************************************************
1. You DON'T need to take it with alcohol for the effects to work
2. It doesn't take 1-2 hours for it to take effect...only 10 minutes
Please take the time to read this whole thing and PLEASE forward it to
everyone you know. If you are female, then I would be wary from now
on about accepting drinks from anyone you don't know well or know LONG
enough to trust. For you guys out there, I"d tell your sister(s) about
this drug and how it could effect them. I typed the article on my
computer so if any of you need copies to give to people without access to
e-mail just let me know.
Oh, another tip for the women...If you're going to accept a drink from
someone you've just met (like a date) then I'd try to make sure it's from
an unopened container and that you open it yourself. If you must accept
a drink anyway, then I'd mention to him that you know *everything* about
Rohypnol and its effects. I hope that would curb his desire to slip
a "roofie" (slang for Rohypnol) in your drink.
God, the world gets worse everyday....oh well, LEARN TO SURVIVE!
Anyway, here's the article:
RAPISTS SLIPPING VICTIMS MODERN-DAY MICKEYS
CHEAP PILL BLOTS OUT MEMORY OF CRIMES
MIAMI-Imagine all the fears of parents whose daughters have hit dating
age packed into one white pill the size of a dime. It may be the
mightiest Mickey Finn ever concocted. And it is not the fiction of Sam
Spade novels and Humphrey Bogart movies.
These days, it costs about $3 at the high school water fountain. It is
colorless, odorless and quickly dissolves in a can of Diet Coke. In about
10 minutes, it creates a drunk-like effect that lasts eight hours. It
enhances the effects of alcohol, causing loss of inhibition, extreme
sleepiness, relaxation and - perhaps worst of all for its victims - amnesia.
The pill is made of a drug called Rohypnol (pronounced ro-hip-nol). Your
kids know them as "roofies." And police are concerned - particularly
about roofie rape.
In Broward County, Fla., 10 men have been arrested on roofie-rape charges
in the past year. The most recent came Feb. 1, when two brothers and a
friend were charged with repeatedly raping a 15-year-old girl after they
secretly put a roofie in her soft drink. A 26-year-old Broward County man
who pleaded guilty to roofie rape in a 1995 case - Mark Anthony Perez of
Plantation - told authorities he used it to rape as many as 40 women. The
problem has not been as prevalent in Dade County, where police
departments reported a handful of suspected sexual assaults related to
roofies in the past six months.
A 17-year-old Coral Springs girl raped Jan. 7, 1996 while she was under
the influence of roofies lost 10 hours between having dinner with friends
and waking up in a strange hotel bed. Police are investigating a
29-year-old suspect who was at the dinner.
"Her panties were around her ankles and a condom next to her," said
the girl's mother. "My daughter didn't know this guy. She doesn't
remember a thing. This man is a rapist and he's going around doing this
to other women," she said. "I want people to know how dangerous this is."
"It's a big, big deal out there right now," said Bonnie Lashbrook, a
student peer counselor at Cooper City High School. "Parents of
teen-age girls should be scared."
College officials also note a concern on college campuses. Reported
sexual assault have increased and may be linked to Rohypnol. Officials
estimate that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. Since, the
victims suffer amnesia many women may have no idea that have been
raped.
Rohypnol is a potent and hypnotic sedative used in some countries to put
out surgery patients. They are prescribed as sleeping pills in about 80
countries, but not the United States. The emergence of the once-obscure
sedative has thrown police agencies for a loop. Florida law officers
have seized tens of thousands of the pills in the past year. Rohypnol is
also easily available from Mexico and parts of Europe. In one raid, the
pills were packaged in vitamin bottles and labeled in Spanish. They were
shipped from Colombia and distributed by two suspects, said sheriff's
spokesman Jim Leljedal. It has proliferated to such a point that the Drug
Enforcement Administration and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
have joined forces with police to have Rohypnol's status as an illegal
drug enhanced to make penalties equal to cocaine and heroin.
"It's just that we have a chance in law enforcement to get ahead of this
thing before it gets too out of control," said Cooper City police Capt.
Jim Harn, whose agency is investigating several roofie-rape cases.
The incident involving the 15-year-old from Cooper City happened in June
at a Sweet 16 party at the Merrimac Hotel on Fort Lauderdale Beach.
Charged with her rape are brother Sidney Harmon, 19, and Scott Harmon,
17, of Pembroke Pines, and Moises Ventura, 18, of Miramar. The Harmons'
mother has said her sons are innocent. The Ventura family has declined
comment. According to friends, Scott and Moises were inseparable friends
who like to start fights and cause trouble. Sidney, who aspires to be a
paramedic, is a quiet, sensitive boy, friends say.
Erica Verriotto, 17, said she was good friends with all three boys for
over several. "Scott was kind of a troublemaker sometimes, you know?"
she said. "Nothing really serious. He used to like, start fights. You
know, yell at people who cut him off in traffic and stuff." "But Sid, no
way," she said. "trust Sid no matter what."
Cooper City detectives say several other girls have come forward with
similar stories about the group of boys, but no charges have yet been filed.
"A lot of times the guys don't think they've done anything wrong," said
Cooper City police Det. Kregg Lupo. "This is not a rape in their eyes
They think if the girl is not awake or alert enough to say, `No,'it's
not rape."
Police say they were able to arrest the Harmons and Ventura primarily
because the rapes happened while the victim's best friend watched - an
eyewitness. Another teen at the party said Scott and Moises bragged
about slipping the roofie into her soft drink.
Other roofie-rapes are more difficult to prosecute because of the
victims' loss of memory of the incident. "It's very difficult making these
cases," said Dennis Nicewander, an assistant state attorney in the Broward
sex-crimes unit. "Usually these victims.don't remember a thing.
"It's almost like the perfect crime," he said. "Because they don't have
to worry about a witness testifying against them. And don't think these
guys aren't figuring that out."
The drug also has the potential to make rapists out of men who without
the drug might not commit the crime, he said. "Usually, they aren't the
kind of guys who would force themselves on someone for sex. They seem to
be the kind of guys you'd see at happy hour with their buddies, the kind
of frat-boy mentality that thinks it's fun to get a girl drunk and have
their way."
The drug also works it's way out of the human system usually within 24
hours, he said, which makes any delay by the victim a problem. "Many of
these kids start out in a compromising position to begin with, then this
happens to them and they are scared and embarrassed and unclear as to
what happened," said Stan Peacock, a Broward prosecutor. "I have told my
17-year-old daughter never to accept a beverage of any kind from anyone
unless it is in a sealed container that she opens herself," he said.
"Does that give you any kind of an idea how concerned I am about it?"
<------====== Jason T. Herring ~ her...@u.arizona.edu ======------>
Jack Kirkman
message that I'll be quoting from, and asked:
>Anyone else heard of this? Any truth/falsehood reports?
>-Ben Monreal
>RAPISTS SLIPPING VICTIMS MODERN-DAY MICKEYS
>CHEAP PILL BLOTS OUT MEMORY OF CRIMES
>MIAMI-Imagine all the fears of parents whose daughters have hit dating
>age packed into one white pill the size of a dime. It may be the
>mightiest Mickey Finn ever concocted. And it is not the fiction of Sam
>Spade novels and Humphrey Bogart movies.
>These days, it costs about $3 at the high school water fountain. It is
>colorless, odorless and quickly dissolves in a can of Diet Coke. In about
>10 minutes, it creates a drunk-like effect that lasts eight hours. It
>enhances the effects of alcohol, causing loss of inhibition, extreme
>sleepiness, relaxation and - perhaps worst of all for its victims - amnesia.
From the DEA (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/rohypnol/rohypnol.htm:
Recent seizures and anecdotal reporting indicate that distribution and
abuse of flunitrazepam are increasing domestically, especially in
southern and southwestern States. Of particular concern is the drug’s
low cost, usually below $5 per tablet, and its growing popularity
among young people. Flunitrazepam is a benzodiazepine that is used in
the short-term treatment of insomnia and as a sedative hypnotic and
preanesthetic medication. It has physiological effects similar to
diazepam (commonly known by its trade name, Valium®), although
flunitrazepam is approximately 10 times more potent. Flunitrazepam
neither is manufactured nor sold licitly in the United States. It is
produced and sold legally by prescription in Europe and Latin America.
Flunitrazepam is ingested orally, frequently in conjunction with
alcohol or other drugs, including heroin. The drug’s effects begin
within 30 minutes, peak within 2 hours, and may persist for up to 8
hours or more, depending upon the dosage. Adverse effects associated
with the use of flunitrazepam include decreased blood pressure, memory
impairment, drowsiness, visual disturbances, dizziness, confusion,
gastrointestinal disturbances, and urinary retention. Paradoxically,
although the drug is classified as a depressant, flunitrazepam can
induce excitability or aggressive behavior in some users.
>The pill is made of a drug called Rohypnol (pronounced ro-hip-nol). Your
>kids know them as "roofies."
More DEA:
Flunitrazepam is sold under the trade name Rohypnol, from which the
street name “Rophy” is derived. In South Florida, street names
include “circles,” “Mexican valium,” “rib,” “roach-2,” “roofies,”
“roopies,” “rope,” “ropies,” and “ruffies.” Being under the influence
of the drug is referred to as being “roached out.” In Texas,
flunitrazepam is called “R-2,” or “roaches.”
> And police are concerned - particularly about roofie rape.
<snip>
> Since, the victims suffer amnesia many women may have no idea that have been
>raped.
The DEA is silent on this subject, but CESAR FAX, Vol. 4 Issue 24,
June 19, 1995.
(http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Colleges/BSOS/Depts/Cesar/drugs/ROHYPNOL)
sez:
An equally serious danger is the reported use of Rohypnol as a "date
rape" drug of choice. Sources in both Florida and Texas report that
the drug is given to females without their consent in order to produce
disinhibition. While this specific use may not be pervasive, it is
cause for concern.
<end quote>
Hmmm. It would seem that the drug can/has been slipped to unsuspecting
women for despicable purposes. It does *not* seem that it produces an
instant zombie that will have no recall of the evening, however. A
blackout and possible trip to the ER would seem more likely.
The way the facts are mutated, the way this is being spread, and the
way that the forwarders previous to Benjamin Monreal added apparently
unfounded hype have a distinctly ULish slant. For a better look, use a
web search engine for Rohypnol AND rape. You'll get hits ranging from
official (and officious) type sources such as I quoted to ones that
state that it is now common practice at frat house parties to "spike"
the punch/drinks with Rohypnol for the sole purpose of committing
rape.
Someone with time/free access/no real life can run a news search and
see if there is a wave of *real* cases, or just a wave or *reports*
about real cases.
________________________________________________________________________
jack "don't need a drug to disinhibit myself" kirkman
94 jkir...@acd.tusk.edu jkir...@mont.mindspring.com 94
Brian Jones
wrote:
>[disinhibited posting snipped. Thanks, Jack.]
Another ULish aspect of this that I haven't seen on here yet is the
etymology of "roofie"...I also checked Jack's web references and they
didn't mention it either. Could this be a UL in the making?
I heard that it's derived from the group that supposedly vectored the drug
into US society, namely, immigrant (mostly mexican) construction workers
(i.e. "roofers") who travelled to Florida after hurricane Andrew to work
the reconstruction. Seems like it was on CNN (or This Old House? Why do I
keep thinking This Old House? I know TOH did an Andrew-damaged home. Maybe
that's why I'm remembering this, or it could actually have been said
there. Doesn't sound like something they would bring up, tho.). Anyway,
the mexican and South Florida connections are there in Jack's references
but no mention of construction workers.
Anybody else remember this?
Brian "Roofing on powerful sedatives: tonight on 48 Hours" Jones
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| My opinions probably suck in a different way from those of my |
| employer. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
JoAnne Schmitz
[he was quoting from an unattributed article distributed to him so I'm
not holding him responsible for the stupidity of it]
>The drug [rohypnol] also has the potential to make rapists out of men who without
>the drug might not commit the crime, he said. "Usually, they aren't the
>kind of guys who would force themselves on someone for sex. They seem to
>be the kind of guys you'd see at happy hour with their buddies, the kind
>of frat-boy mentality that thinks it's fun to get a girl drunk and have
>their way."
Actually, getting a girl drunk and having your way with her _is_
forcing yourself on someone for sex.
The drug doesn't make anyone a rapist who isn't already sick. "Your
Honor, the roofies made me do it." Pfleagh.
JoAnne "and if you've been roofered or just plain date raped by a nice
frat-boy mental case, call the police, and read my .sig" Schmitz
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are emergency contraception pills that you can take
after you have had unprotected sex. They work up to three
days after intercourse. You don't have to wait to be sure
you're pregnant and then have an abortion.
For more information you can call 1-800-584-9911. Or check
the web site http://opr.princeton.edu/ec/ec.html.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Kinser
>
> Benjamin Monreal <bmon...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> *forwarded* the
> message that I'll be quoting from, and asked:
>
>
> From the DEA (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/rohypnol/rohypnol.htm:
>
> Recent seizures and anecdotal reporting indicate that distribution and
> abuse of flunitrazepam are increasing domestically, especially in
> low cost, usually below $5 per tablet, and its growing popularity
> among young people. Flunitrazepam is a benzodiazepine that is used in
> the short-term treatment of insomnia and as a sedative hypnotic and
> preanesthetic medication. It has physiological effects similar to
> flunitrazepam is approximately 10 times more potent. Flunitrazepam
> neither is manufactured nor sold licitly in the United States. It is
> produced and sold legally by prescription in Europe and Latin America.
>
Feds have banned it. Nothing like a ban to create a market for
something.
Ken Kinser
Opinions expressed are mine and not neccesarily those of Medtronic Inc.
(my employer and access provider) or the White Bear Lake Fire Department
(the volunteer agency of my choice)
ken.k...@medtronic.com
Amanda Marie Marcotte
: Hmmm. It would seem that the drug can/has been slipped to unsuspecting
: women for despicable purposes. It does *not* seem that it produces an
: instant zombie that will have no recall of the evening, however. A
: blackout and possible trip to the ER would seem more likely.
From my minimal experience with the drug, it seems to have the same
effects as alcohol, but only harsher. This seems to smack of a Spanish
Fly legend. However, it is a little likely. More than one guy has
spiked a girl's drink in the past so she is more likely to say yes, and
"roofies" probably just have the same effect. A girl under the influence
isn't likely to pass out, but she is very likely to be pressured easily.
However, I have heard that this counts as rape in some places.
-Mandy the Mighty Mouse
Carla Schack
: Fly legend. However, it is a little likely. More than one guy has
: "roofies" probably just have the same effect. A girl under the influence
: isn't likely to pass out, but she is very likely to be pressured easily.
: However, I have heard that this counts as rape in some places.
not to rant, but it doesn't "count as rape" it _is_ rape. the legal
definition almost everywhere in the US is sex without consent. a woman
under the influence is not capable of giving informed consent, therefore,
sex with a (severely) intoxicated woman is rape. a woman doesn't have to
say no, she can be too "out of it" to form any coherent response, or so
confused that she just goes along with whatever is happening to her.
sorry, off charter, but its an important thing to understand, esp. for
college aged readers.
--
The Big Kahuna Burger,
csc...@emerald.tufts.edu
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hey, I got some actual stuff on my homepage! |
+ A little boring, but check it out at http://www.tufts.edu/~cschack/ +
| And if you have suggestions for links, let me know. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Shawn W. Barnhart
!
! I got this from somebody who seemed to be taking it _very_ seriously. As
! for me, I'd list this one right between LSD-stickers and Good Times viri.
! Anyone else heard of this? Any truth/falsehood reports?
There have been several reports of this becoming popular in Southwestern
Minnesota. Feed 'em pills and take advantage of them when their will to
resist has been blunted. I don't remember the specific drug used, although
I do recall something being mentioned about it been an illegal perscription
drug.
I'd buy it (the story, not the drug).
--
Shawn Barnhart s...@mercury.campbell-mithun.com
Network Administrator Campbell Mithun Esty Advertising
Contains no user-servicable parts. Contact an authorized service center.
Joseph Askew
>From my minimal experience with the drug, it seems to have the same
>effects as alcohol, but only harsher. This seems to smack of a Spanish
>Fly legend. However, it is a little likely. More than one guy has
>spiked a girl's drink in the past so she is more likely to say yes, and
>"roofies" probably just have the same effect. A girl under the influence
>isn't likely to pass out, but she is very likely to be pressured easily.
>However, I have heard that this counts as rape in some places.
Which brings us back to the nature of ULs. I suspect this one
is like the one about taxis in Taiwan. We were told that it was
far too dangerous for girls to get a taxi at night in Taiwan as
all taxi drivers were sex crazed former convicts (which might
well have been true). Hence for teenage girls with little chance
of owning a car the only option was to be home by 11 when the
buses stopped. In the same way I would think this is spread in
order, either consciously or otherwise, to keep girls at home
and behaving well. It isn't enough they don't get drunk, they
now have to stop drinking altogether. AIDS has clearly not been
able to live up to its initial promise as a modifier of behavious
likely to annoy fathers.
Joseph
Danyel A Fisher
Brian Jones <brian...@ajc.com> wrote:
>
>Another ULish aspect of this that I haven't seen on here yet is the
>etymology of "roofie"...I also checked Jack's web references and they
>didn't mention it either. Could this be a UL in the making?
>
peoples roofs.]
As a dlysexic typist, I typed (and read) the word as "rophynol" a couple of
times before I saw "rohypnol;" although this is certainly NOT a documentation,
it is a useless theory to throw out into the pool.
After all, "roofie" is easier to pronounce than "rophynol."
Danyel "doesn't feed roofie to his roomie, do you?" Fisher
--
The CDA means lost jobs and | Danyel Fisher | That's the line. Reality
dead teenagers. | da...@cec.wustl.edu | is none of your business.
M A Beda
A friend of mine (not a FOAF, mind,) sent me a long e-mail missive from
Bulgaria a week or two ago detailing his robbery at the hands of some, uh
criminals I guess. Craig and his friend Demian were in Sofia, where they
met two young men claiming to be visiting students. They went to a movie
and then the felafel house with them, and then to a bar where they
enjoyed a few beers. Craig's last conscious memory, as he left the bar
with his friend and two new acquaintances, was of asking Demian if he
felt funny, Demien replied "yeah, my lips feel numb and I feel really
weird." I'm paraphrasing.
They woke up in their room at the boardinghouse they were staying at late
the following afternoon, missing their passports, visas, all of their
cash, and Demian's radio. They quizzed the landlady, who said that they
had been driven home in a taxi, Demien unconscious and Craig barely
conscious, and the cab driver demanded an exorbitant sum for the fare
(and, it turned out, took the radio as payment).
Warned that going to the police would be an exercise in futility due to
corruption and general apathy, they went to the American embassy (or
consulate), where they were rewarded with (and here we get back to the
topic of this thread) a pamphlet warning Americans not to accept drinks or
food from Arabs claiming to be students, because that was the m.o. of some
sort of ring of druggers-and-passport-stealers active in the city. Craig
though that this was rich with irony. Further, they were informed that
they were actually lucky, really, because they had not been a) killed, b)
beaten or c) raped. (there, you thought I was never going to get to
rape!)
It seems to me that whatever the actual incidence of rape in cases of
mickey-slipping by ne'er-do-wells, this possibility is going to be the
element that, not surprisingly, people find particularly chilling. The
idea that people are doing criminal things to your possessions after
they've robbed you of your consciousness is bad enough, but the notion
that they are also invading your body is especially disturbing.
Anyway, if I hear from him again, I'll ask him to save/send me the
pamphlet the 'Merkin agency (whatever it was) gave him. At the time I
got the message from him I didn't know there was this rich interpretive
debate going on re the feasibility of 'rape-drugs.
-mbeda
--
* "The mountain goat's remarkable sense of irony, and its *
* convexly padded hooves, enable it to ascend nearly sheer *
* rock stars. It grazes on all low-growing, grassy, brushy, *
* helpless vegetation. *
Brian Jones
(Danyel A Fisher) wrote:
> As a dlysexic typist, I typed (and read) the word as "rophynol" a couple of
> times before I saw "rohypnol;" although this is certainly NOT a documentation,
> it is a useless theory to throw out into the pool.
Your theory seems to have been canonized in the New York Times on December
9, 1995. In a page 6 article that describes rape cases such as we have
discussed here (among other aspects of the drug), Mireya Navarro states
that "roofies" is a mispronunciation of the drug name.
She also states that the drug appeared on the US drug scene in Dade county
in 1989, well before Hurricane Andrew. If this is true, then obviously the
tale I heard of the street name's etymology was deeply flawed. If I hear
it again, though, I'll know what to do.
Brian "...tell them to stop saying that." Jones
You suffer in the gloom of the sickroom | Brian...@ajc.com
And talk to yourself until you die. | My opinions suck in a
- Pink Floyd | different way than those
"Free Four" | of my employer.
Sean Willard
: In article <4l0hpb$b...@mule1.mindspring.com>, jkir...@mont.mindspring.com
: wrote:
: >[disinhibited posting snipped. Thanks, Jack.]
: Another ULish aspect of this that I haven't seen on here yet is the
: etymology of "roofie"...I also checked Jack's web references and they
: didn't mention it either. Could this be a UL in the making?
Better hone those reading skills, Brian. From Jack's article (but also
in the Web page he referred to):
| From the DEA (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/rohypnol/rohypnol.htm:
...
| Flunitrazepam is sold under the trade name Rohypnol, from which the
| street name “Rophy” is derived. In South Florida, street names
| include “circles,” “Mexican valium,” “rib,” “roach-2,” “roofies,”
| “roopies,” “rope,” “ropies,” and “ruffies.” Being under the influence
| of the drug is referred to as being “roached out.” In Texas,
| flunitrazepam is called “R-2,” or “roaches.”
Get it? Rohypnol -> Rophy -> roofie. No bizarre hurricane Andrew/
Latin-American construction owrker theory needed.
Sean
Bob Church
26th edition of Newsweek.
-------------------------------------------
"'Roofies': The Date-Rape Drug"
Like alchohol, roofies make some users fearless and aggressive, but a
scarier effect is blackouts, with complete loss of memory. That's why
it's also known as "the date-rape drug". According to Broward County,
Fla., prosecutor Bob Nichols, one adult and three juveniles he's
successfully prosecuted had knocked women out with roofies in rapes
they committed. Such cases - which usually involve slipping the drug
into a woman's drink, are hard to prosecute, Nichols says, since the
women can't usually remember any details of the crime - but sometimes
the prosecution gets lucky. Mark Perez, a satellite-dish installer from
Pembroke Pines, Fla., couldn't resist boasting to friends that he'd
drugged and raped a dozen women, most of whom he had picked up in bars.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Church
Bob Church
26th edition of Newsweek.
-------------------------------------------
"'Roofies': The Date-Rape Drug"
--------------------------------------------------------
On an unrelated note, I suspect that this why it's believed women
rarely become serial killers. They're probably out there, but they
don't get stupid-drunk and start bragging about what they did.
Bob Church
Jan Pels Chem Eng
: Amanda Marie Marcotte (ama...@acad.stedwards.edu) wrote:
: : Fly legend. However, it is a little likely. More than one guy has
: : "roofies" probably just have the same effect. A girl under the influence
: : isn't likely to pass out, but she is very likely to be pressured easily.
: : However, I have heard that this counts as rape in some places.
: not to rant, but it doesn't "count as rape" it _is_ rape. the legal
: definition almost everywhere in the US is sex without consent. a woman
: under the influence is not capable of giving informed consent, therefore,
: sex with a (severely) intoxicated woman is rape. a woman doesn't have to
: say no, she can be too "out of it" to form any coherent response, or so
: confused that she just goes along with whatever is happening to her.
: sorry, off charter, but its an important thing to understand, esp. for
: college aged readers.
Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
might happen. Or is the man who takes advantage of it a rapist?
I know these discussions do not belong here, but I could not let this
unresponded. Do not misunderstand me: if intoxicated unvoluntarily
this _is_ rape. Perhaps even worse, because it has been planned in
advance; and not the thrill of the moment.
Jan
: --
: The Big Kahuna Burger,
: csc...@emerald.tufts.edu
: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: | Hey, I got some actual stuff on my homepage! |
: + A little boring, but check it out at http://www.tufts.edu/~cschack/ +
: | And if you have suggestions for links, let me know. |
: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell someone that you're dead, and they look at you as if they've seen a ghost.
-- Terry Pratchett in "Reaper Man"
Madeleine Page
if a woman takes a roofie and her partner has sex with her while
she is unable to form consent:
: is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
: state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
: might happen.
If a woman gets "out of it" what she is consenting to is getting stoned.
She is not consenting to sex. So intercourse under these conditions is
indeed rape, and to say otherwise comes dangerously close to the "she
asked for it" argument.
: Do not misunderstand me: if intoxicated unvoluntarily
: this _is_ rape. Perhaps even worse, because it has been planned in
: advance; and not the thrill of the moment.
Wearing short skirts, getting drunk, going to someone's room, getting
stoned or walking alone late at night are *not* the same as consenting to
sex with anyone who cares to help themselves. That women who do any or
all of the above are offering themselves as sexual partners is a
particularly noxious urban legend.
And rape remains a vile and violent crime, whether it is premeditated or
"the thrill of the moment". You write as if you believe that spontaneity
somehow exonerates the act.
Madeleine "Sorry, had to be said. Now let's say "hitler" and get on with
afu" Page
--
Amanda Marie Marcotte
: Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
: state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
: I know these discussions do not belong here, but I could not let this
: this _is_ rape. Perhaps even worse, because it has been planned in
The only way f--king woman who is passed out or otherwise too inebriated
to consent is not rape is if she expressed consent before she became
inebriated. But, that's sticky. Just avoid the whole situation, because
things just seem like they could get out of hand too quickly.
-Mandy the Mighty Mouse
Helge Moulding
: Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
: state of being too "out of it"?
Of course not, just like a guy who gets drunk in Mexico is
volunteering to donate a kidney.
--
Helge "These Chem Engs, what a laff!" Moulding
h...@slc.unisys.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401/ with a new sig
_______________________________________________ ___________________________
"Do you think if we talk about my name enough || Annoying Joel Furr is not
I can get into the FAQ?" -- Maddie Boudreaux || a hobby, it's a duty!
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
Bill Welch
piter.sun.csd.unb.ca> writes
>Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
>state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
>might happen.
By the same argument, anyone (male or female) who gets stoned or drunk
can't be robbed or murdered because by getting "out of it" they consent
to whatever might happen to them, and are voluntarily giving away their
property and their life.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
--
Yellow piskie exposes Bill Welch's partly-kept bicycle!
Alan J Rosenthal
>Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
>state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
Yes. Next question.
Alan "if a man deliberately walks down a back alley and gets stabbed, is it
really murder? Or if a man deliberately wears nice clothes and gets robbed?" R
Michael Heinz
Of course, a woman might choose to deliberately bring herself to a
state of arousal, because she wants to have sex. There's an easy way
to test for this state, though, you ask her.
Mike "Always worked for me..." Heinz
-----------------------------
Michael Heinz, mhe...@ssw.com
"The Borg assimilated me, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!"
- madsci...@dark.mountain.stronghold
Megan Knight
When I was travelling in East/Central Africa a few years back we were
repeatedly warned not to take food from strangers on public transport.
Apparently a number of travellers had done so and "woke[n] up three days
later with luggage, money, passport, etc, all gone".
I only met one person who said this had happened to him, and he made the
claim to a friend of mine, not to me directly. He was, however,
definitely destitute.
The events all supposedly happened in Tanzania, which I have to admit
was one of the scariest places I went. The number of attempted
bag-snatchings and the like I personally experienced in five days in Dar
Es Salaam was greater than the rest of the nine months everywhere else.
I did occasionally accept biscuits or fruit from strangers on trains,
etc, and suffered no ill effects, but maybe I'm just lucky.
Megan "the only South African I know who will admit to never having been
robbed, mugged, or hijacked" Knight
PS mbeda wouldn't be the younger sister of Johann would she? If so, tell
your brother mogs says hi.
Jan Pels Chem Eng
: In article <4liitv$g...@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>, Jan Pels Chem Eng <jrpels@ju
: piter.sun.csd.unb.ca> writes
: >Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
: >state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
: >might happen.
: By the same argument, anyone (male or female) who gets stoned or drunk
: can't be robbed or murdered because by getting "out of it" they consent
: to whatever might happen to them, and are voluntarily giving away their
: property and their life.
: Does this sound reasonable to you?
<<plus a number of similar reactions, not included>>
Oh yes, it does. I do not approve that when people do certain things
that can have unwanted side effects (walking through a back alley in
expensive clothes in a part of town where even the cops don't like to
go - see Alan's posting), that whoever takes the opportunity of committing
a crime is justified to do so, just because the victim offers this
opportunity. No. It is a matter of what that person intended when
doing those 'certain things'. And now, we are back at the rohypnol.
This drug is taken by junkies - at least in Amsterdam, but I am pretty
sure elsewhere too - to bring themselves in a state of mind where they
can rob, burgle, steal in order to get money for the next high. The
advantage of rohypnol is that most people forget what they did, but
know that when drugged they do not hesitate to molest people what they
would never consider when NOT under the influence of rohypnol.
It is the uninhibited release of aggression what makes this stuff so
popular and so dangerous, combined with the fact that one tends not to
remember what one did, so you do not have feelings of guilt and when
arrested you are more capable to deny involvment in what you did.
Often rohypnol is taken to do this. So the user intends to become
aggressive and wants to forget about his crime.
As mentioned in previous postings these effects could be tried on women
to rape them and have them forget about the whole thing. Simply
disgusting, and I doubt whether it actually works, especially the
forget-part. Coming back to my previous posting. What, if a woman takes
rohypnol to have sex and to forget about it. Well, I cannot imagine
that many would do so. Actually, she must be pretty troubled to want
such a thing happening. It is probably men's fantasy getting overheated,
or a man taking the pill to unleash his inhibition to rape (most men
are NOT rapists, but many fantasize about it) and wanting to forget
what he did. One small point, he might have overlooked: he did not
only forget the bad parts, but also the fun part of his sex-adventure.
I'll read the replies, but rest my case.
Jan Pels
And what about the guy who walked in later, meets the drugged girl,
asks her whether she wants to have sex too, and later finds out that
his 'buddies' drugged her?
Oh no, this has all gone FAR too silly.
Claude D. Bilbo
>As mentioned in previous postings these effects could be tried on women
>to rape them and have them forget about the whole thing. Simply
>disgusting, and I doubt whether it actually works, especially the
>forget-part.
There are drugs which do cause amnesia. Often used in anaesthesia
to prevent a patient from remembering anything just in case they
do wake up during the procedure. Muscle relaxants prevent movement,
so the only clue the doc has that you're not under completely is a
rise in BP/HR. Best for everyone involved if you just don't recall
such things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Claude D. Bilbo | |
| cbi...@mindspring.com | All of my opinions are |
| bilb...@eng.uab.edu | completely uncorrelated.|
| http://www.mindspring.com/~cbilbo/ | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer S. Mullen
Pels Chem Eng) says:
>doing those 'certain things'. And now, we are back at the rohypnol.
>This drug is taken by junkies - at least in Amsterdam, but I am pretty
>sure elsewhere too - to bring themselves in a state of mind where they
>can rob, burgle, steal in order to get money for the next high.
Where didst thou hear this govoreeted, oh my little droogie?
>advantage of rohypnol is that most people forget what they did, but
>know that when drugged they do not hesitate to molest people what they
>would never consider when NOT under the influence of rohypnol.
>It is the uninhibited release of aggression what makes this stuff so
>popular and so dangerous, combined with the fact that one tends not to
>remember what one did, so you do not have feelings of guilt and when
>arrested you are more capable to deny involvment in what you did.
>Often rohypnol is taken to do this. So the user intends to become
>aggressive and wants to forget about his crime.
This is interesting. I have never before been heard of rohypnol
being taken by an agressor - the news reports and warning speak
of women who are slipped the drug unawares.
Or are you just making this up?
>Coming back to my previous posting. What, if a woman takes
>rohypnol to have sex and to forget about it. Well, I cannot imagine
>that many would do so. Actually, she must be pretty troubled to want
>such a thing happening.
Uh, the drug is *given to the woman without her knowledge.* That is
the UL. Where have you heard of women taking this of their own
volition?
>It is probably men's fantasy getting overheated,
Like that's a difficult thing.
>And what about the guy who walked in later, meets the drugged girl,
>asks her whether she wants to have sex too, and later finds out that
>his 'buddies' drugged her?
>Oh no, this has all gone FAR too silly.
And you're making up far too much. Rape is not a silly thing, and
don't you dare ever intimidate that any aspect of it is.
--
Jennifer S. Mullen
red...@psu.edu
http://cac.psu.edu/~jsm158/ (soon)
Robert Schmidt
<bi...@moonmoth.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <4liitv$g...@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>, Jan Pels Chem Eng
<jrpels@ju
>piter.sun.csd.unb.ca> writes
>
>>Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into
this
>>state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing
what
>>might happen.
>
>By the same argument, anyone (male or female) who gets stoned or drunk
>can't be robbed or murdered because by getting "out of it" they
consent
>to whatever might happen to them, and are voluntarily giving away
their
>property and their life.
>
>Does this sound reasonable to you?
>
You can't consent to murder even if you're not "out of it" so no
its not reasonable to kill someone because they are drunk. However, if
someone who is drunk says "Here have some money" I don't see anything
illegal about taking it. It is probably wrong though. If they are
unconscious (sp?) then it is obviously a crime.
Back to the original statement about spiking someone's drink. It
is a felony (poisoning) simply to spike their drink in the first place.
>--
>Yellow piskie exposes Bill Welch's partly-kept bicycle!
Rob Schmidt
Mike D'Angelo
: You can't consent to murder even if you're not "out of it" so no
: its not reasonable to kill someone because they are drunk. However, if
: someone who is drunk says "Here have some money" I don't see anything
: illegal about taking it. It is probably wrong though.
I'm not entirely sure that this is analogous, but if a cash machine spits
out more money than you requested, your bank has the right to demand it
back once they find out. (This actually happened to me -- they just
zapped it from my account, and sent me a letter informing me that they'd
done so.) If $50,000 suddenly appears unexpectedly in your bank
account, and you use it to buy thousands of copies of Brunvand's books in
order to distribute them among the clueless, you will in fact be arrested
for (burglary? robbery? embezzlement? petty theft? naivete? I'm not sure
what the actual charge would be). In each case, the money was "given" to
you, but in the eyes of the law you should have known better than to
accept it. I feel that a similar principle is involved in the instance
above. (This is assuming that the recipient is aware of the inebriation,
cognizant of the fact that this person might not be prepared to hand
over his wallet were he stone sober.) Would you actually be arrested? I
rather doubt it. I wouldn't come to your birthday party, though.
Mike "unless there was absolutely *nothing* on TV that night" D'Angelo
Bill Welch
piter.sun.csd.unb.ca> writes
>Bill Welch (bi...@moonmoth.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <4liitv$g...@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>, Jan Pels Chem Eng <jrpels@ju
>: piter.sun.csd.unb.ca> writes
>
>: >Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
>: >state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
>: >might happen.
>
>: By the same argument, anyone (male or female) who gets stoned or drunk
>: can't be robbed or murdered because by getting "out of it" they consent
>: to whatever might happen to them, and are voluntarily giving away their
>: property and their life.
>
>: Does this sound reasonable to you?
>
>
>Oh yes, it does.
None of what followed in your message really backed up this opinion.
A woman can give or refuse consent to sex, and if she is in no state to
do either, you would proceed at your peril.
If I go down an alley looking richer than the local inhabitants and I am
mugged, I may be stupid, but I am not responsible for the mugging.
If a country's leaders decide to kill some women and children to make a
political point, it is they who are responsible, not their enemies.
And so on.
-Bill 'look what you made me do!' Welch
--
Amorous mouse mends Bill Welch's wistfully-arched antiquities!
Bob Church
jrp...@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Jan Pels Chem Eng) writes:
>
> Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
> state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
> unresponded.
Well, you're partly on track here. That is, most readers of AFU enjoy a
well written troll now and then. However, rape is a subject that's so
painful to many people that it's considered rude to use it as bait. I
realize that you took great pains to word the question so blatantly
misogynistic and immaturely that few will mistake it for a serious
question. Still, please show a little more care when selecting the
subject of your jokes.
Thank you,
Bob Church
Andrew Welsh
: This is interesting. I have never before been heard of rohypnol
: being taken by an agressor - the news reports and warning speak
: of women who are slipped the drug unawares.
:
: Or are you just making this up?
Well the DEA site (if you can believe such sources) at:
http://justice2.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/rohypnol/rohypnol.htm says:
"Paradoxically, although the drug is classified as a depressant, flunitrazepam
can induce excitability or aggressive behavior in some users."
So whilst we mightn't have heard the stories, it may be possible (M!) for it
to have some effect on an aggressor.
andrew "ebeneezer goode" Welsh
--
Andrew Welsh (and...@nortel.ca/@nt.com/@bnr.co.uk/@bnr.ca)
Opinions expressed above are not necessarily endorsed by Nortel.
"music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission
of a succession of repetitive beats - UK Criminal Justice Act, section 53(1)(b)
JoAnne Schmitz
>Robert Schmidt (rmsc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: You can't consent to murder even if you're not "out of it" so no
>: its not reasonable to kill someone because they are drunk. However, if
>: someone who is drunk says "Here have some money" I don't see anything
>: illegal about taking it. It is probably wrong though.
>I'm not entirely sure that this is analogous, but if a cash machine spits
>out more money than you requested, your bank has the right to demand it
>back once they find out.
And considering this is in reference to rape, it's important to
remember that "not fighting a guy off" is not the same as "handing it
out."
If the lady in question is not able to give consent, then don't even
think about it. Really. Even if she seems to be coming on to you.
She might be hallucinating that you're someone else. A gentleman
would say "let's do this another time, really, let me get you a cup of
tea."
JoAnne "and a lady would do the same" Schmitz
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are emergency contraception pills that you can take
after you have had unprotected sex. They work up to three
days after intercourse. You don't have to wait to be sure
you're pregnant and then have an abortion.
For more information you can call 1-800-584-9911. Or check
the web site http://opr.princeton.edu/ec/ec.html.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike D'Angelo
JoAnne Schmitz (jsch...@qis.net) wrote:
: If the lady in question is not able to give consent, then don't even
: think about it. Really. Even if she seems to be coming on to you.
: She might be hallucinating that you're someone else. A gentleman
: would say "let's do this another time, really, let me get you a cup of
: tea."
And a gentleman does say it, in THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. Ah, Jimmy.
Mike "there are rules about that sort of thing" D'Angelo
cp...@shore.intercom.net
You're absolutely correct insofar as they are not "consenting" to rape
by getting "out of it" ... however, a modicum of common sense has to
be interjected here with respect to behavior choices. Women (or men
for that matter) who behave dangerously, foolishly and generally
irresponsibly with respect to drugs, alcohol etc. and the related
ability to make rational decisions are throwing themselves in harms
way.
Regardless of the moral and ethical posture of predatory "harmers"
people do have to accept some degree of responsibilty for personal
stupidity. It is a dangerous world and it is filled with predators of
all sorts. Failure to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in
potentially dangerous situations may not be tantamount to saying "rape
me" but it is equivalent to a person running into heavy traffic,
getting hit and them claiming that they didn't "consent" to geting
struck by a car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
>Jan Pels Chem Eng (jrp...@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote about culpability
>if a woman takes a roofie and her partner has sex with her while
>she is unable to form consent:
>: is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
>: state of being too "out of it"? If she takes them herself, knowing what
>: might happen.
>If a woman gets "out of it" what she is consenting to is getting stoned.
>She is not consenting to sex. So intercourse under these conditions is
>indeed rape, and to say otherwise comes dangerously close to the "she
>asked for it" argument.
>: Do not misunderstand me: if intoxicated unvoluntarily
>: this _is_ rape. Perhaps even worse, because it has been planned in
>: advance; and not the thrill of the moment.
>Wearing short skirts, getting drunk, going to someone's room, getting
Carla Schack
cp...@shore.intercom.net wrote:
: Regardless of the moral and ethical posture of predatory "harmers"
: people do have to accept some degree of responsibilty for personal
: stupidity. It is a dangerous world and it is filled with predators of
: all sorts. Failure to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in
: potentially dangerous situations may not be tantamount to saying "rape
: me" but it is equivalent to a person running into heavy traffic,
: getting hit and them claiming that they didn't "consent" to geting
: struck by a car.
hardly. sorry, wrong analogy. if you run into traffic, then if people
don't manage to avoid you, you get hit. it's partly your fault, but they
try to miss. if you get "out of it" and get raped, someone still had to
make the consious decision to violate you, you just made it easier on
them. you still have to live with the fact that you put yourself in
danger, but the guilt of the attacker is in NO way lessened. the traffic
situation is more analogous to someone crossing the street when there
were cars on it, and one of the cars swerving to hit them. yeah, if they
had known more about human nature and not put themselves in the position
to get hit, it wouldn't have happened. but the person who commits the
crime still has full respinsibility for their actions. (is it any less
murder to kill a person who left their door unlocked and is sleeping in
their bed, than to kill a struggling person after a fight? making it easy
for someone may be stupid and dangerous, but it isn't the same as walking
in front of a car.)
--
The Big Kahuna Burger,
csc...@emerald.tufts.edu
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "I love him, but every day I'm learning." -Eponine |
| http://www.tufts.edu/~cschack/ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rhenda Iris Strub
jrp...@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Jan Pels Chem Eng) wrote:
>Perhaps off topic, but is it rape if a woman goes deliberately into this
>state of being too "out of it"?
Yes.
>If she takes them herself, knowing what might happen.
If "she" were your wife, on a business trip with another man
would you be asking this question? Rape is rape.
>Or is the man who takes advantage of it a rapist?
A rapist is a rapist.
>I know these discussions do not belong here, but I could not let this
>unresponded. Do not misunderstand me: if intoxicated unvoluntarily
>this _is_ rape.
Rape is rape, whether the victim is drunk or sober.
>Perhaps even worse, because it has been planned in advance; and not the thrill of the moment.
There is no such thing as worse rape. Rape is rape. A rapist
is a rapist whether he is a opportunistic rapist or a
premeditating rapist.
An easy way to distinguish this in the future: if she did not
say "yes" it's rape. And if she said yes first and later said
no, it's still rape.
Rhenda "still hitting the ball and dragging Fred" Strub
rhe...@rapidnet.com
Founder, Entropic Freedom Foundation (TM)
Struggling to Repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. --Earl Weaver
JoAnne Schmitz
cp...@shore.intercom.net wrote:
>Regardless of the moral and ethical posture of predatory "harmers"
>people do have to accept some degree of responsibilty for personal
>stupidity. It is a dangerous world and it is filled with predators of
>all sorts. Failure to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in
>potentially dangerous situations may not be tantamount to saying "rape
>me" but it is equivalent to a person running into heavy traffic,
>getting hit and them claiming that they didn't "consent" to geting
>struck by a car.
This equation would only make sense if a woman leapt, pantless and
legs spread, in front of a pack of men running down the street with
their erect penises preceding them.
There is a difference between a real and present threat to life and
limb by people of good will doing something legal, and a potential
threat by people of ill will thinking of doing something illegal.
JoAnne "nice picture, though" Schmitz
Chris Peek
>This equation would only make sense if a woman leapt, pantless and
>legs spread, in front of a pack of men running down the street with
>their erect penises preceding them.
An interesting picture to be sure Joanne, but the distance your
analogy and mine is much closer than you might think in the real
world. A woman who goes on a date and consents to become "out of it"
to the degree she loses consciousness ( or close to it) is essentially
placing herself at the absolute mercy of the situation. If the
"situation" involves someone who wishes to take advantage of her "out
of it" state of consciousness she may be raped etc.
Getting blotto has gotten many men robbed, beaten and killed
throughout recorded history and it's hardly a surprise that there are
also bad or predatory people who will rape a woman under the same
circumstances.
I was making the point that "consent" to be "harmed" as such is
somewhat beside the point if people make foolish and irresponsible
choices about personal behavior that places them in harms way. To say
that a woman or man does not bear some responsibility for being
robbed or raped if they get stoned to the point of unconsciousness is
absurd. No one is saying it's somehow right or morally justified for
the robber or rapist to do these things, but to become stoned to the
point you are easy prey for a predator, get harmed and then try to
seriously discuss "consent" issues is ridiculous.
>There is a difference between a real and present threat to life and
>limb by people of good will doing something legal, and a potential
>threat by people of ill will thinking of doing something illegal.
In discussing the issue of personal responsibility for behavior(s) and
their attendant consequences I'm afraid I don't understand your
above statement or the distinction you are trying to make in the
context of choosing to become stoned to the point of unconsciousness.
Getting "out of it" to the degree you lose consciousness will
_always_ present a real and present (not potential) threat to life and
limb regardless of what you perceive the moral and ethical posture of
your companions and situation to be. "Good will" (let's say a will not
to harm) and ill will (a will to do harm) are subject to situational
changes in the real world. Getting stoned or drunk out of ones mind
can cause a companion/bystander/etc's will "not to do harm" to
change to a "will to harm" that takes advantage of the situation. It
may not be right or proper for these things to happen but they do and
any man or woman with an ounce of common sense understands this aspect
of life on planet Earth.
I realize there is slippery slope from drinking a few beers or smoking
a joint to being stoned into unconsciousness. However, these are
personal behavior choices and they have their associated degrees of
risk attached in the real world. Forrest Gump aside personal
decisions to manifest irresponsible, stupid behavior is always
dangerous, consent notwithstanding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jsch...@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz) wrote:
>cp...@shore.intercom.net wrote:
>>Regardless of the moral and ethical posture of predatory "harmers"
>>people do have to accept some degree of responsibilty for personal
>>stupidity. It is a dangerous world and it is filled with predators of
>>all sorts. Failure to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in
>>potentially dangerous situations may not be tantamount to saying "rape
>>me" but it is equivalent to a person running into heavy traffic,
>>getting hit and them claiming that they didn't "consent" to geting
>>struck by a car.
>JoAnne "nice picture, though" Schmitz
Leonardo Serni
cbi...@bham.mindspring.com (Claude D. Bilbo) wrote:
>jrp...@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Jan Pels Chem Eng) wrote:
><S>
>>As mentioned in previous postings these effects could be tried on women
>>to rape them and have them forget about the whole thing. Simply
>>disgusting, and I doubt whether it actually works, especially the
>>forget-part.
><S>
>There are drugs which do cause amnesia. Often used in anaesthesia
>to prevent a patient from remembering anything just in case they
>do wake up during the procedure. Muscle relaxants prevent movement,
>so the only clue the doc has that you're not under completely is a
>rise in BP/HR. Best for everyone involved if you just don't recall
>such things.
There also are natural substances - the oxytocin hormone, for example,
produced by the female hypophysis (sp?) back lobe during childbirth.
Its main effect is to reduce bleeding and reinforce contractions
(synthetic oxytocin is used to induce childbirth).
Yet, there are receptors in the brain which, upon being triggered by
oxytocin, will induce algoamnesia, a mnemonic disturbance preventing
(or at least obfuscating) the memory of pain.
Leonardo "once almost-roofied by train techno-pickpockets"
Rhenda Iris Strub
Jennifer S. Mullen <JSM...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4llale$q...@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>, jrp...@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Jan
>Pels Chem Eng) says:
>>Coming back to my previous posting. What, if a woman takes
>>rohypnol to have sex and to forget about it. Well, I cannot imagine
>>that many would do so. Actually, she must be pretty troubled to want
>>such a thing happening.
>Uh, the drug is *given to the woman without her knowledge.* That is
>the UL. Where have you heard of women taking this of their own
>volition?
Personal experience perhaps? Could there be a woman out there
who chose to forget an evening with this sensitive guy?
Rhenda "is it a flame if he asked for it?" Strub
Ian Munro
Chris Peek (cp...@shore.intercom.net) wrote:
: I was making the point that "consent" to be "harmed" as such is
: somewhat beside the point if people make foolish and irresponsible
: choices about personal behavior that places them in harms way. To say
: that a woman or man does not bear some responsibility for being
: robbed or raped if they get stoned to the point of unconsciousness is
: absurd. No one is saying it's somehow right or morally justified for
: the robber or rapist to do these things, but to become stoned to the
: point you are easy prey for a predator, get harmed and then try to
: seriously discuss "consent" issues is ridiculous.
I would guess that JoAnne is seriously discussing consent issues
because there are people who still seem to believe that a woman who
is raped while deliberately intoxicated is somehow complicit in the
attack. "Choices about personal behaviour" is a side issue here, if it
is indeed an issue at all; I've yet to see anyone suggest getting "stoned
to the point of unconsciousness" in unsafe or uncertain situations is a
smart move. The issue is that having sex with someone without their
consent is rape, regardless of their state of intoxication.
You agree with this, I think, which is why I don't understand your last
sentence. Are you saying that someone who is raped while intoxicated
shouldn't be able to press criminal charges? That they're not "as raped"
as someone who was sober? What do you find so ridiculous about
discussing consent under such circumstances?
Ian "by the way, please start trimming unnecessary quotes" Munro
--
"Watch that, Ren-boy."--Michele Tepper
Cindy Kandolf
cp...@shore.intercom.net writes:
| Regardless of the moral and ethical posture of predatory "harmers"
| people do have to accept some degree of responsibilty for personal
| stupidity. It is a dangerous world and it is filled with predators of
| all sorts. Failure to exercise a reasonable degree of caution in
| potentially dangerous situations may not be tantamount to saying "rape
| me" but it is equivalent to a person running into heavy traffic,
| getting hit and them claiming that they didn't "consent" to geting
| struck by a car.
No, there is a very important difference. If you run out into heavy
traffic, chances are quite good that a driver will have no choice but
to hit you - he won't have time to stop or steer around you (or
stopping or steering around you would be more dangerous, looking at
the whole situation, because a larger number of people would be put in
danger). But if you get drunk, it is NOT the case that someone has no
choice but to rape you. Rape is always a choice on the rapist's part;
hitting a careless pedestrian isn't always a choice on the driver's
part.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
ci...@nvg.unit.no Trondheim, Norway
The flodweb: http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/
Follow the links to the Bilingual Families Web page!
Bill Welch
In article <4lu02n$s...@doc.zippo.com>, Rhenda Iris Strub
<rhe...@rapidnet.com> writes
>There is no such thing as worse rape. Rape is rape. A rapist
>is a rapist whether he is a opportunistic rapist or a
>premeditating rapist.
Surely there is such a thing as "worse rape" - that is, one rape being
worse than another. To say this can't be so is confusing the issue.
It's more realistic to say that rape can't ever be acceptable or good,
however it happens.
--
Cowardly ape-man enlists Bill Welch's sharply-kept bread-bin!
Madeleine Page
Chris Peek writes:
>A woman who goes on a date and consents to become "out of it"
>to the degree she loses consciousness ( or close to it) is essentially
>placing herself at the absolute mercy of the situation.
Nice reassuring impersonal word, "situation". Lets call this particular
spade by its correct name and say she is placing herself at the mercy of
the man she's with.
>If the
>"situation" involves someone who wishes to take advantage of her "out
>of it" state of consciousness she may be raped etc.
So far, so good. But you move slickly from this statement to seeing the
job of prevention as the woman's, not the man's.
Lets tailor your original traffic analogy a little so it more closely
resembles the facts of the case. Say that studies found that a number of
red cars were deliberately mowing down pedestrians, but only those
pedestrians who were over six feet tall. Not all red cars were doing
this, but a statistically significant number. And 99% of vehicular
homicide was a result of red cars mowing down tall pedestrians.
What's the solution here? Have all tall people stay inside their houses
and not go out on the sidewalk? Or take measures to prevent red cars
from killing passersby? Your argument focuses on the victims and how
they needs must constrain their behaviour in order to avoid harm. It
says, in essence, "Well, if you're a tall person, getting mowed down by
red cars is the way of the world, and you have to adjust your behaviour
to take this fact into account."
Chris, this is not a trivial issue. Most of the women of my acquaintance
won't walk alone at night, even in the safest neighbourhoods in this
city. Most people who drop me off at home will stay to make sure I get
in the house safely. Many women who, like me, live alone have elaborate
safety systems: alarms, double locks, means of self defence to hand.
Most won't go to a bar alone. Many won't go to the large city park
around here because there have been incidents of assault there.
I do go out and walk alone at night. I walk home alone after the theatre
or a concert - don't see why I should wait for ever for a bus or pay for
a taxi. I live alone and don't have Mace or guns to defend myself. If
I'm out and about and I feel like having a drink, I'll go to a bar. And
I still go the park despite the incidents of assault, because it's a
beautiful place to be, a touch of the countryside in the city.
Yes, I take a risk in doing all these things. Yes, sometimes I feel some
fear. But I'm damned if I'm going to be forced to live in a sort of
purdah because (some) men are a threat to me. But it makes me even more
bloody angry if someone comes along and tells me I have a measure of
responsibility if I am assaulted because I make choices that are not
worth a second thought to men in the same situation. I don't have any
culpability or responsibility if I am assaulted. All I have done is
insist on living my life as if I am not a potential victim, insist I have
the right not to constrict my choices because I am a woman.
Madeleine "and please trim your quotes before posting" Page
--
Chris Peek
mu...@scunix4.harvard.edu (Ian Munro) wrote:
>Chris Peek (cp...@shore.intercom.net) wrote:
>: I was making the point that "consent" to be "harmed" as such is
>: somewhat beside the point if people make foolish and irresponsible
>: choices about personal behavior that places them in harms way. To say
>: that a woman or man does not bear some responsibility for being
>: robbed or raped if they get stoned to the point of unconsciousness is
>: absurd. No one is saying it's somehow right or morally justified for
>: the robber or rapist to do these things, but to become stoned to the
>: point you are easy prey for a predator, get harmed and then try to
>: seriously discuss "consent" issues is ridiculous.
>I would guess that JoAnne is seriously discussing consent issues
>because there are people who still seem to believe that a woman who
>is raped while deliberately intoxicated is somehow complicit in the
>attack. "Choices about personal behaviour" is a side issue here, if it
>is indeed an issue at all; I've yet to see anyone suggest getting "stoned
>to the point of unconsciousness" in unsafe or uncertain situations is a
>smart move. The issue is that having sex with someone without their
>consent is rape, regardless of their state of intoxication.
>You agree with this, I think, which is why I don't understand your last
>sentence. Are you saying that someone who is raped while intoxicated
>shouldn't be able to press criminal charges? That they're not "as raped"
>as someone who was sober? What do you find so ridiculous about
>discussing consent under such circumstances?
>Ian "by the way, please start trimming unnecessary quotes" Munro
>--
>"Watch that, Ren-boy."--Michele Tepper
Rape, whether consciousness or unconscious is rape and deserves to be
punished to the extent allowed by law. Choices about personal
behavior in this context are most certainly _not_ a side issue in this
discussion.
While a man or woman who becomes intoxicated to the point of
unconsciousness doesn't "consent" to be robbed or raped their decision
to behave so irresponsibly essentially throws them on the mercy of
their surroundings for better or worse and yes I do believe that
individuals bear some responsibility for the consequences of deciding
to put themsleves in harms way.
My main point is that if we take the premise (which I think we agree
on) that rape is wrong no matter the circumstances and that no one in
their right mind would "consent" to be raped. Whether this is
"complicit" in the strict sense of the definition below... probably
not. However, if you decide (that bad 'ol personal behavior issue) to
be stoned into unconsciousness you are in effect "consenting" to throw
yourself on the absolute mercy of the situation.
This is why I feel the "consent" to be robbed/raped issue is somewhat
beside the point. If I do something abjectly stupid and dangerous,
bad things are much more likely to happen to me **_WHETHER I CONSENT
TO THEM OR NOT_**. A man or women who drinks herself into
unconsciousness and is robbed or raped _is responsible_ to a
significant degree for placing themselves in a dangerous situation.
even if they do not be strictly "consent to" the bad things that then
ensue .
Is a woman "not as raped" if raped in a drunken stupor, obviously not
rape is rape Is the unconscious woman "responsible" for foolishly
placing herself in a dangerous situation, obviously so. "Consenting"
to throw yourself on the mercy of a potentially dangerous situation
is not the same thing as "consenting" to be raped. But if consenting
to one (unconscious stupor) causes the probability of the other
(robbery/rape) to increase by orders of magnitude to claim that a
normally intelligent, rational person bears no responsibility for what
happens to them regardless of their behavior so long as they didn't
specifically "consent" to it is a distinction that escapes me and I
think would escape most rational people.
ie. com-plic-i-ty (kuhm plis'i tee) n. pl. <-ties> 1. the
state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in
wrongdoing.
pI suppose
JoAnne Schmitz
cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) wrote:
>Rape, whether consciousness or unconscious is rape and deserves to be
>punished to the extent allowed by law. Choices about personal
>behavior in this context are most certainly _not_ a side issue in this
>discussion.
In a legal situation, when a person is responsible for an act, he or
she must bear the consequences. Legally, if you consider a woman
responsible for being raped, then she must bear the consequences.
>While a man or woman who becomes intoxicated to the point of
>unconsciousness doesn't "consent" to be robbed or raped their decision
>to behave so irresponsibly essentially throws them on the mercy of
>their surroundings for better or worse and yes I do believe that
>individuals bear some responsibility for the consequences of deciding
>to put themsleves in harms way.
So what does this boil down to in real life? In what way is the
victim going to bear "her share" of this responsibility? Will the
rapist be less punished? Will she be forced to carry an unwanted
pregnancy, or will she be chided by the judge, or what? Please be
specific.
>My main point is that if we take the premise (which I think we agree
>on) that rape is wrong no matter the circumstances and that no one in
>their right mind would "consent" to be raped. Whether this is
>"complicit" in the strict sense of the definition below... probably
>not. However, if you decide (that bad 'ol personal behavior issue) to
>be stoned into unconsciousness you are in effect "consenting" to throw
>yourself on the absolute mercy of the situation.
You are consenting to be oblivious. You are not consenting to have
things done to you.
>Is a woman "not as raped" if raped in a drunken stupor, obviously not
>rape is rape Is the unconscious woman "responsible" for foolishly
>placing herself in a dangerous situation, obviously so.
She is foolish, but she is in no way responsible for the actions of
another person.
>"Consenting"
>to throw yourself on the mercy of a potentially dangerous situation
>is not the same thing as "consenting" to be raped. But if consenting
>to one (unconscious stupor) causes the probability of the other
>(robbery/rape) to increase by orders of magnitude to claim that a
>normally intelligent, rational person bears no responsibility for what
>happens to them regardless of their behavior so long as they didn't
>specifically "consent" to it is a distinction that escapes me and I
>think would escape most rational people.
You are wrong. I and many other rational people do not place the
blame or responsibility for a criminal or wrongful act on the victim.
The person who commits the act is responsible. The person who commits
the act always has the choice not to commit the act.
>ie. com-plic-i-ty (kuhm plis'i tee) n. pl. <-ties> 1. the
>state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in
>wrongdoing.
The victim did nothing wrong. Try looking up vulnerability instead.
JoAnne "I've got a great idea, let's have criminals punish people for
being irresponsible" Schmitz
Jennifer S. Mullen
Rhenda Iris Strub (rhe...@rapidnet.com) wrote:
: >Uh, the drug is *given to the woman without her knowledge.* That is
: >the UL. Where have you heard of women taking this of their own
: >volition?
: Personal experience perhaps? Could there be a woman out there
: who chose to forget an evening with this sensitive guy?
But she would have to take it *before* having sex - it isn't like you can
take rohypnol and then sit down and concentrate on forgetting one specific
memory. Like I've said, conjecture is fine, but I really do not think that
saying "it might have happened" is a good reason to back up a claim for
which a cite has not presented. Especially since this is a claim which
could be detrimental - "Your honor, I didn't slip her a roofie; she took it
herself!"
Rhenda Iris Strub
cp...@shore.intercom.net promises common sense but offers none
when writing:
>Regardless of the moral and ethical posture of predatory "harmers"
>people do have to accept some degree of responsibilty for personal
>stupidity.
[merciful snip of nonsense comparing rape to jaywalking]
If a woman strips butt-nekid and dances on the table tops of a
public bar and a man has sex with her absent her consent it is
rape. Rape is rape. There is no such thing as "contributory
negligence" in rape.
There are, however, far too many rape apologists.
Rhenda "hating that I have to explain this" Strub
James Linn
In article <4m30ju$7...@shore4.intercom.net>, cp...@shore.intercom.net
(Chris Peek) wrote:
> <Chris, Ian and Michelle's dialog snipped>, Chris responds thus
> Rape, whether consciousness or unconscious is rape and deserves to be
> punished to the extent allowed by law. Choices about personal
> behavior in this context are most certainly _not_ a side issue in this
> discussion.
>
> While a man or woman who becomes intoxicated to the point of
> unconsciousness doesn't "consent" to be robbed or raped their decision
> to behave so irresponsibly essentially throws them on the mercy of
> their surroundings for better or worse and yes I do believe that
> individuals bear some responsibility for the consequences of deciding
> to put themsleves in harms way.
Get outta town. If you walk along railway tracks with a train coming, you
are responsible. If you are drunk to the state of consciousness, you may
be stupid, but you can't possibly be responsible for anything that occurs
while you are unconscious.
I'm sorry for stealing his wallet your honour, but he was passed out, so
he was partially responsible. Try this one at your next court appearance.
This shows a decided tendancy towards the thoroughly lamentable blame the
victim attitude that to my mind became prevalent in the 70s. I remember
more than one court case where the judge blamed inappropriate attire for
causing rape. To me, individual reponsibility is thus: Criminals are
responsible for crimes. Victims are victims. Period. There is no license
to commit crime based on the status of the victim. A drunk person has the
same rights as a sober one (except behind the wheel of a car of course).
>
> My main point is that if we take the premise (which I think we agree
> on) that rape is wrong no matter the circumstances and that no one in
> their right mind would "consent" to be raped. Whether this is
> "complicit" in the strict sense of the definition below... probably
> not. However, if you decide (that bad 'ol personal behavior issue) to
> be stoned into unconsciousness you are in effect "consenting" to throw
> yourself on the absolute mercy of the situation.
>
So you think that one can conceive that perhaps one shouldn't get drunk,
because just possibly they might get raped. Get real. Put yourself in the
victims shoes. Unless one of their drinking companions is wearing a prison
issue uniform, or an "I hate women" T shirt, what expectation would she
have that this event might occur. I guess I shouldn't drive my car today,
because someone might hit me. I guess I shouldn't give the party's hostess
my coat and valuables, because someone might steal them. I guess I
shouldn't drink because someone might take advantage of me.
Do you see the problem in logic here? No one should have a reasonable
expectation of these kind of events. And most court systems are based on
the premise of a "reasonable man" being the standard to which one's
behavior is compared. And IMHO a reasonable man doesn't expect that if he
becomes incapacitated that others will take advantage of him, if he is
among friends and acquaintences.
> This is why I feel the "consent" to be robbed/raped issue is somewhat
> beside the point. If I do something abjectly stupid and dangerous,
> bad things are much more likely to happen to me **_WHETHER I CONSENT
> TO THEM OR NOT_**. A man or women who drinks herself into
> unconsciousness and is robbed or raped _is responsible_ to a
> significant degree for placing themselves in a dangerous situation.
> even if they do not be strictly "consent to" the bad things that then
> ensue .
>
In what sense is drinking oneself into unconciousness considered a
dangerous situation (except perhaps to your kidneys). It may be stupid,
but not dangerous, unless one has the reasonable expectation that that the
less drunk person in the room might rape you. And I can't for the life of
me see that happening that often. One might date many potential rapists,
but one doesn't knowingly date a potential rapist. Unless you are indeed a
sick puppy.
> Is a woman "not as raped" if raped in a drunken stupor, obviously not
> rape is rape Is the unconscious woman "responsible" for foolishly
> placing herself in a dangerous situation, obviously so. "Consenting"
> to throw yourself on the mercy of a potentially dangerous situation
> is not the same thing as "consenting" to be raped. But if consenting
> to one (unconscious stupor) causes the probability of the other
> (robbery/rape) to increase by orders of magnitude to claim that a
> normally intelligent, rational person bears no responsibility for what
> happens to them regardless of their behavior so long as they didn't
> specifically "consent" to it is a distinction that escapes me and I
> think would escape most rational people.
>
I consider myself to be a rational person and therefore resent your
presumptions on my behalf.
If the "date" in question was a known rapist AND a woman dated him anyway,
AND had an expectation that if she drank herself into an unconcious stupor
she might be raped, then perhaps she might share some small part of the
blame. But I doubt this is a likely event.
I think perhaps instead of defining complicity, you should instead look up
Empathy, and practise it a little. If you can put yourself into the
victim's mindset, you might gain further understanding of the issue.
James "empathy are us" Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Alan J Rosenthal
cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) writes:
>Getting blotto has gotten many men robbed, beaten and killed
>throughout recorded history and it's hardly a surprise that there are
>also bad or predatory people who will rape a woman under the same
>circumstances.
But it *is* surprising, or should be, that people claim that the rapist
in such a situation should not be prosecuted. No one says this about the
robber/murderer in such a situation.
Alan "F. A significant percentage of rapes occur with 'blotto' victims" R.
Rhenda Iris Strub
In response to my statement:
>>There is no such thing as worse rape. Rape is rape. A rapist
>>is a rapist whether he is a opportunistic rapist or a
>>premeditating rapist.
Bill Welch <bi...@moonmoth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Surely there is such a thing as "worse rape" - that is, one rape being
>worse than another. To say this can't be so is confusing the issue.
>It's more realistic to say that rape can't ever be acceptable or good,
>however it happens.
Ask the victims and you will hear that there is no such thing as
"just a rape", or "not such a bad rape, as rapes go". There may
be beating, or stabbing, or other horrible injuries. But, ask
the victims of any kind of attack involving rape how they feel
about it and you will hear very similar responses no matter how
much brutality accompanied the assault.
Furthermore, look at Jan Pels statement to which I was
responding:
>>>Do not misunderstand me: if intoxicated unvoluntarily
>>>this _is_ rape. Perhaps even worse, because it has
>>>been planned in advance; and not the thrill of the moment.
This man is saying that rape is worse when planned in advance
and not undertaken in "the thrill of the moment". Just reading
that statement makes me want to wretch. And you say *I'm*
confusing the issue?
Rhenda "I shoulda told him to go to hell" Strub
Ian Munro
Chris Peek (cp...@shore.intercom.net) wrote:
: Is a woman "not as raped" if raped in a drunken stupor, obviously not
: rape is rape Is the unconscious woman "responsible" for foolishly
: placing herself in a dangerous situation, obviously so. "Consenting"
: to throw yourself on the mercy of a potentially dangerous situation
: is not the same thing as "consenting" to be raped. But if consenting
: to one (unconscious stupor) causes the probability of the other
: (robbery/rape) to increase by orders of magnitude to claim that a
: normally intelligent, rational person bears no responsibility for what
: happens to them regardless of their behavior so long as they didn't
: specifically "consent" to it is a distinction that escapes me and I
: think would escape most rational people.
What I still don't understand is the significance of the word
"responsibility" for you. I originally assumed that since we're
discussing a crime you meant "legal responsibility", but that doesn't
seem to be the case.
What was being discussed here was the question of whether a severly
intoxicated person could consent to sex (not "consent to be raped", which
is an oxymoron). Everyone, including you I think, responded "no". Case
closed.
What's continuing this thread is that you want to assign some sort of
blame to our hypothetical intoxicated person. That's why I called it a
side issue, and it's one that I still don't really understand. What,
exactly, are you trying to get across with "responsibility"? Is it a
sort of objectivist thing, that we must bear responsibility for all our
actions? If you think so, fine, but go peddle it on a.p.o or wherever the
Randites have now landed. Because of their history, words like
"responsibility" carry a lot of baggage in discussions of rape; I think
it's best to use them as carefully as possible.
Ian "" Munro
--
"The Library is unlimited and cyclical. If an eternal traveller were to
cross it in any direction, after centuries he would see that the same
volumes were repeated in the same disorder (which, thus repeated, would
be an order: the Order). My solitude is gladdened by this elegant hope."
--Jorge Luis Borges
Greg Fife
In article <4m30ju$7...@shore4.intercom.net>,
Chris Peek <cp...@shore.intercom.net> wrote:
>Rape, whether consciousness or unconscious is rape and deserves to be
>punished to the extent allowed by law. Choices about personal
>behavior in this context are most certainly _not_ a side issue in this
>discussion.
>
>While a man or woman who becomes intoxicated to the point of
>unconsciousness doesn't "consent" to be robbed or raped their decision
>to behave so irresponsibly essentially throws them on the mercy of
>their surroundings for better or worse and yes I do believe that
>individuals bear some responsibility for the consequences of deciding
>to put themsleves in harms way.
I think this is the whole point - attempts to reduce this issue to
"because it is HIS fault means that SHE did nothing wrong" is to create
a false dichotomy. People argue as if the "responsability" for a crime
were some fixed quantity, and that any responsability placed on a victim
is responsability taken away from a rapist. Horsehockey!
1) A victim's voluntary state of intoxication does not in any way lessen
a rapist's moral or criminal responsability for rape, and it does not
in any way justify or excuse an act of rape.
2) Nevertheless, becoming incapacitated in a situation where there is
a serious threat of rape is a reckless action. Society should
discourage this behavior at every reasonable opportunity. A woman
may reasonably argue that she SHOULD be able to live in a world where
she can become drunk anywhere she wishes, but the ugly truth is that
women DO NOT live in such a world. Neither do men, for that matter.
Just because a rapist did something that was morally reprehensible does
not mean that a victim did not do something that was foolish. Just
because a victim did something foolish does not in any way diminish
the crime of a rapist.
Our desire to avoid "blaming the victim" should not get in the way of
the necessary work of educating the potential victims - and the potential
victimizers.
Greg "fire every college administrator who won't tell the truth
about rape" Fife
Chris Peek
mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
>Chris Peek writes:
>>A woman who goes on a date and consents to become "out of it"
>>to the degree she loses consciousness ( or close to it) is essentially
>>placing herself at the absolute mercy of the situation.
>Nice reassuring impersonal word, "situation". Lets call this particular
>spade by its correct name and say she is placing herself at the mercy of
>the man she's with.
Or _not_ with. I think several of these "oblivious" situations have
involved "the man she's with" leaving her to the tender mercies of the
bar etc. wherein she became "oblivious", but for arguments sake
lets agree to "the man she's with".
>>If the
>>"situation" involves someone who wishes to take advantage of her "out
>>of it" state of consciousness she may be raped etc.
>So far, so good. But you move slickly from this statement to seeing the
>job of prevention as the woman's, not the man's.
I been called a lot a things but I have admit "slick" is a first for
me. I am the very antithesis of slick. I am a high grip surface.
>Lets tailor your original traffic analogy a little so it more closely
>resembles the facts of the case. Say that studies found that a number of
>red cars were deliberately mowing down pedestrians, but only those
>pedestrians who were over six feet tall. Not all red cars were doing
>this, but a statistically significant number. And 99% of vehicular
>homicide was a result of red cars mowing down tall pedestrians.
>What's the solution here? Have all tall people stay inside their houses
>and not go out on the sidewalk? Or take measures to prevent red cars
>from killing passersby? Your argument focuses on the victims and how
>they needs must constrain their behaviour in order to avoid harm. It
>says, in essence, "Well, if you're a tall person, getting mowed down by
>red cars is the way of the world, and you have to adjust your behaviour
>to take this fact into account."
To extend this metaphor accurately the person will have a "choice" of
being tall (blotto) or not. If being tall is going to cause the bad
and immoral red cars to favor hitting me I will endeavor to "not be
tall" when I am proximate to them. It may not be fair or convenient to
have to moderate my height thusly but if the choices split on vastly
increasing the probability of being hit or moderating my height that
is the decision I will have to make.
>Chris, this is not a trivial issue. Most of the women of my acquaintance
>won't walk alone at night, even in the safest neighbourhoods in this
>city. Most people who drop me off at home will stay to make sure I get
>in the house safely. Many women who, like me, live alone have elaborate
>safety systems: alarms, double locks, means of self defence to hand.
>Most won't go to a bar alone. Many won't go to the large city park
>around here because there have been incidents of assault there.
>I do go out and walk alone at night. I walk home alone after the theatre
>or a concert - don't see why I should wait for ever for a bus or pay for
>a taxi. I live alone and don't have Mace or guns to defend myself. If
>I'm out and about and I feel like having a drink, I'll go to a bar. And
>I still go the park despite the incidents of assault, because it's a
>beautiful place to be, a touch of the countryside in the city.
>Yes, I take a risk in doing all these things. Yes, sometimes I feel some
>fear. But I'm damned if I'm going to be forced to live in a sort of
>purdah because (some) men are a threat to me. But it makes me even more
>bloody angry if someone comes along and tells me I have a measure of
>responsibility if I am assaulted because I make choices that are not
>worth a second thought to men in the same situation. I don't have any
>culpability or responsibility if I am assaulted. All I have done is
>insist on living my life as if I am not a potential victim, insist I have
>the right not to constrict my choices because I am a woman.
If you read my previous posts you will notice that I indicated that
"men" getting "oblivious" has been the cause of "men" getting robbed
beaten and killed throughout recorded history. Getting blotto without
"a second thought" _most certainly_ has significant and dangerous
consequences for men.
To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with" is
absurd. A woman (or man) who chooses to become "blotto" is choosing
to place him or herself in a much higher risk circumstance than
otherwise. While not responsible for or "consenting to" the specific
act of rape or robbery, assult etc. it _is_ incumbent on potential
victims _male and female alike_ to exercise some degree of caution
with respect to behavior choices in the real world. While this may
not translate to **specific** culpability or responsibility for the
individual awful things that happen to you for pursuing foolish
personal behavior it does translate to being responsible (to
ourselves) for increasing the probability that those awful things will
happen if we do abjectly stupid and foolish things.
I understand your anger and it is shared by most _men and women_ in
the current real world especially the urban "real world". Where do you
get the idea that men don't give a "second thought" to getting robbed,
beaten and injured and adjust their behavior accordingly. Any man
with common sense venturing into a dangerous or poorly lit area is
_always_ cautious. Nothing is trivial about personal safety.
Life has _always_ been dangerous for men and women alike Madeline. I
daresay you will contine to have to be cautious and circumspect (if
you so choose) about the situations you are in and the possible
dangers they pose until the end of your days *so will _I_*. Until
people change, cities change and the world changes which is a damned
slow process.
There _is_ a degree of inequity in the relative dangers posed to
women and men in potentially dangerous circumstances but short of
insisting on an equal opportunity code of conduct for criminals and
predators or DNA manipulation to make sure _everyone_ is 6'3" and can
bench press a VW I don't know that there is a ready solution for this
circumstance.
If you insist on living your life without "a constriction of choices"
godspeed to you Madeline but I wouldn't want to be your insurance
company.
Ken Kinser
Ian Munro wrote:
>
> What was being discussed here was the question of whether a severly
> intoxicated person could consent to sex (not "consent to be raped", which
> is an oxymoron). Everyone, including you I think, responded "no". Case
> closed.
Does this mean I have to start giving my wife a breathalyser test on my
birthday and anniversary?
--
Ken Kinser
Opinions expressed are mine and not neccesarily those of Medtronic Inc.
(my employer and access provider) or the White Bear Lake Fire Department
(the volunteer agency of my choice)
ken.k...@medtronic.com
Chris Peek
jsch...@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz) wrote:
>cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) wrote:
>>Rape, whether consciousness or unconscious is rape and deserves to be
>>punished to the extent allowed by law. Choices about personal
>>behavior in this context are most certainly _not_ a side issue in this
>>discussion.
>In a legal situation, when a person is responsible for an act, he or
>she must bear the consequences. Legally, if you consider a woman
>responsible for being raped, then she must bear the consequences.
>>While a man or woman who becomes intoxicated to the point of
>>unconsciousness doesn't "consent" to be robbed or raped their decision
>>to behave so irresponsibly essentially throws them on the mercy of
>>their surroundings for better or worse and yes I do believe that
>>individuals bear some responsibility for the consequences of deciding
>>to put themsleves in harms way.
>So what does this boil down to in real life? In what way is the
>victim going to bear "her share" of this responsibility? Will the
>rapist be less punished? Will she be forced to carry an unwanted
>pregnancy, or will she be chided by the judge, or what? Please be
>specific.
In this case it would be a self recognized "personal" responsibility
nothing more or less and given current law would obviously not
mitigate the punishment of the criminal or put additional legal
burdens on the person who was harmed. Specifically then... the
burden of the "responsibility" in this context is a personal one for
the individual having made a foolish choice that put them at greater
risk to be harmed than might be the case otherwise. It basically would
involve their recognition that doing stupid, foolish things increases
the probability of undesirable consequences occurring that one did not
forsee or otherwise consent to and that it would be best not to do
these things in the future. Some people might call it "common sense".
>>My main point is that if we take the premise (which I think we agree
>>on) that rape is wrong no matter the circumstances and that no one in
>>their right mind would "consent" to be raped. Whether this is
>>"complicit" in the strict sense of the definition below... probably
>>not. However, if you decide (that bad 'ol personal behavior issue) to
>>be stoned into unconsciousness you are in effect "consenting" to throw
>>yourself on the absolute mercy of the situation.
>You are consenting to be oblivious. You are not consenting to have
>things done to you.
No disagreement. As I indicate elsewhere in the harsh realities of
everyday existence if you are "oblivious" your "consent" to the bad
things that happen to you is somewhat beside the point as they
may/will happen anyway regardless of whether you desire them to or
not.
>>Is a woman "not as raped" if raped in a drunken stupor, obviously not
>>rape is rape Is the unconscious woman "responsible" for foolishly
>>placing herself in a dangerous situation, obviously so.
>She is foolish, but she is in no way responsible for the actions of
>another person.
In a narrow context I do agree with you that that each individual is
responsible for their own actions. But to say that that one's own
actions and behavior does not influence the behavior of potential
"harmers" is absurd in the extreme. Predators will always look for
the weak and helpless.
If a person **decides** of their own volition and through their own
actions to make themselves completely helpless (ie oblivious) this
will encourage predators and harmers to predate and harm them
regardless of specific consent on the part of the harmed and
regardless of whether it is right and moral for the predators and
harmers to do this.
>>"Consenting"
>>to throw yourself on the mercy of a potentially dangerous situation
>>is not the same thing as "consenting" to be raped. But if consenting
>>to one (unconscious stupor) causes the probability of the other
>>(robbery/rape) to increase by orders of magnitude to claim that a
>>normally intelligent, rational person bears no responsibility for what
>>happens to them regardless of their behavior so long as they didn't
>>specifically "consent" to it is a distinction that escapes me and I
>>think would escape most rational people.
>You are wrong. I and many other rational people do not place the
>blame or responsibility for a criminal or wrongful act on the victim.
>The person who commits the act is responsible. The person who commits
>the act always has the choice not to commit the act.
>>ie. com-plic-i-ty (kuhm plis'i tee) n. pl. <-ties> 1. the
>>state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in
>>wrongdoing.
>The victim did nothing wrong. Try looking up vulnerability instead.
>JoAnne "I've got a great idea, let's have criminals punish people for
>being irresponsible" Schmitz
OH but they do Joanne!!!!! That's the _whole point_!
Joe Thompson
James Linn wrote:
>
> I remember
> more than one court case where the judge blamed inappropriate attire for
> causing rape. To me, individual reponsibility is thus: Criminals are
> responsible for crimes. Victims are victims. Period. There is no license
> to commit crime based on the status of the victim. A drunk person has the
> same rights as a sober one (except behind the wheel of a car of course).
Say rather, that regardless of your current state of intoxication, you have the
same rights -- *and* responsibilities -- as when sober. Note that those who are
not mentally competent enough to be held responsible for themselves normally are
not treated any differently under this standard. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Cornerstone Networks | Opinions expressed here may or
j...@cstone.net | 410 E. Water St. | may not be those of Cornerstone
On-Site Service & | Charlottesville, VA | Networks, Inc.
Technical Support | 804.984.5600 | http://www.cstone.net/
Angus Johnston
cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) writes:
> To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
> choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with" is
> absurd.
That depends, as several folks have noted, on how you define
"responsibility."
> A woman (or man) who chooses to become "blotto" is choosing
> to place him or herself in a much higher risk circumstance than
> otherwise.
By my most generous reading of your posts, this seems to be your
primary point---that people who do risky things take risks by doing so.
If I'm right, rest easy. No one here disagrees with you.
What position do you think you're arguing against, anyway---that women
should be encouraged to drink themselves into unconsciousness among
strangers? Again, rest easy.
> While not responsible for or "consenting to" the specific
> act of rape or robbery, assult etc. it _is_ incumbent on potential
> victims _male and female alike_ to exercise some degree of caution
> with respect to behavior choices in the real world. While this may
> not translate to **specific** culpability or responsibility for the
> individual awful things that happen to you for pursuing foolish
> personal behavior...
Well, hold on a second. You just kind of elided past the core question,
didn't you? If "incumbency" doesn't translate into specific
culpability, then, as I suspected, you're pretty much just telling us
all to be careful out there. Excellent advice, and thanks for it.
But if this incumbency _does_ (or "may" or could or should) translate
into such culpability, then we're looking at a very different
situation, and your casualness about the question is kind of chilling.
Five years ago, a woman in New York named Krista Absalon got herself
into exactly the situation we're describing here. She got drunk in a
bar with her boyfriend, he skipped out on her, and she passed out in
the bathroom while she was waiting for him to come back. While she was
unconscious, she was raped by five men, one of whom was the bartender
who had continued to feed her free drinks after she was heavily
intoxicated.
The men subsequently bragged to friends about the event, and when
questioned by the police, four of the five admitted to what they had
done. They were charged with first degree rape, but allowed to plea
bargain down to a misdemeanor, sexual misconduct. Although all five men
admitted their guilt in court, and although the maximum sentence for
the reduced offense was a year in prison, they were each fined just
$840 and allowed to go free.
This is where the assigning of "culpability" to women who are raped
leads, Chris. When you say it's "absurd" to suggest that a woman who is
raped isn't responsible for the rape if she got drunk first, you're
contributing to the climate in which the next Krista Absalon's
attackers will be allowed to go free. You may not intend to, but you
are.
(And if you think this is a gender-neutral issue, see if you think the
five men who raped Absalon would have walked away with fines if the
passed-out drunk they had sexually assaulted had been a man.)
--
Angus Johnston
http://www.panix.com/~angusj
Bill Welch
In article <4m45f6$e...@doc.zippo.com>, Rhenda Iris Strub
<rhe...@rapidnet.com> writes
>In response to my statement:
>
>>>There is no such thing as worse rape. Rape is rape. A rapist
>>>is a rapist whether he is a opportunistic rapist or a
>>>premeditating rapist.
>
>Bill Welch <bi...@moonmoth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Surely there is such a thing as "worse rape" - that is, one rape being
>>worse than another. To say this can't be so is confusing the issue.
>>It's more realistic to say that rape can't ever be acceptable or good,
>>however it happens.
>
>Ask the victims and you will hear that there is no such thing as
>"just a rape", or "not such a bad rape, as rapes go". There may
>be beating, or stabbing, or other horrible injuries. But, ask
>the victims of any kind of attack involving rape how they feel
>about it and you will hear very similar responses no matter how
>much brutality accompanied the assault.
OK, I accept that this is often (not always) the case. But there is a
very great difference in how bad those rapes may be from the viewpoint
of a third party.
Let me be clear that I have not said, and will not say, anything that
implies approval of any rape. The quotes in your paragraph above do
not represent my opinions. But, for example, I would contend that a
person in authority who subverts that authority (such as rape by a
police officer), or a parent who rapes a child, are committing worse
rapes than a husband who does not get clear consent from his wife.
And, to illustrate why I think your paragraph does not give the whole
truth, I would be surprised if such a child did not suffer more than an
adult, for a whole range of reasons, entirely apart from the danger that
such children may become abusers themselves in turn, thus perpetuating
the ill effects of the original rape down several generations.
If society does not see such rapes as worse than others, deserving more
attention, more effort at prevention, and greater response when they
occur, problems will ensue.
--
Unfortunate autochthone sings about Bill Welch's truly-painted boots!
Bill Snyder
Jennifer S. Mullen <JSM...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>I have never before...heard of rohypnol being taken by an agressor - the
>news reports and warning speak of women who are slipped the drug unawares.
>Or are you just making this up?
>>Coming back to my previous posting. What, if a woman takes
>>rohypnol to have sex and to forget about it. Well, I cannot imagine
>>that many would do so. Actually, she must be pretty troubled to want
>>such a thing happening.
>Uh, the drug is *given to the woman without her knowledge.* That is
>the UL. Where have you heard of women taking this of their own
>volition?
>>It is probably men's fantasy getting overheated,
>Like that's a difficult thing.
I saw a portion of the interview on the largely sensational Geraldo
show yesterday (re-run, I suppose), wherein the young interviewee
claims that
- girls frequently ask to take the drug of their own volition, and
- he himself has taken the drug of his own volition.
He did not explain exactly why it is taken with consent. Only that it
certainly does occur. Please understand, he did not exactly present
himself as a vorac^W^W^W^Weracious individual. But could it point to
some sort of misguided, drug-induced bondage/subjugation/fantasy game?
What a setup for disaster!
--
Bill Snyder
Jennifer S. Mullen
Greg Fife (gn...@server.ee.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: I think this is the whole point - attempts to reduce this issue to
: "because it is HIS fault means that SHE did nothing wrong" is to create
: a false dichotomy. People argue as if the "responsability" for a crime
: were some fixed quantity, and that any responsability placed on a victim
: is responsability taken away from a rapist. Horsehockey!
Fine then. Let's say that you get drunk, and some guy comes over and shoves
his penis into your anus and thrusts until he comes. I'd just *love* to see
you say, "Well, I was drunk, so I guess I have some responsibility for it."
People like you make me absolutely sick. Unless you have been violated in
such a way, then you have absolutely no right to talk about whose fault it
is, because you just don't know. A woman is not at all responsible for
getting raped. That's like saying that any guy who gets drunk is
responsible for whatever happens to him.
: 2) Nevertheless, becoming incapacitated in a situation where there is
: a serious threat of rape is a reckless action. Society should
: discourage this behavior at every reasonable opportunity. A woman
: may reasonably argue that she SHOULD be able to live in a world where
: she can become drunk anywhere she wishes, but the ugly truth is that
: women DO NOT live in such a world. Neither do men, for that matter.
True, but she still has NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR BEING RAPED. She has
responsibility for getting drunk, but absolutely NONE for the actions of
another person. She could have been raped if she were sober. There is no
difference. Being overpowered and violated is still being overpowered and
violated.
: Greg "fire every college administrator who won't tell the truth
: about rape" Fife
Go fuck yourself. Your attitude not only makes me angry, it makes me sick
and upset.
Ian Munro
Ken Kinser (ken.k...@medtronic.com) wrote:
: Ian Munro wrote:
: > What was being discussed here was the question of whether a severly
: > intoxicated person could consent to sex (not "consent to be raped", which
: > is an oxymoron). Everyone, including you I think, responded "no". Case
: > closed.
: Does this mean I have to start giving my wife a breathalyser test on my
: birthday and anniversary?
Your wife only gets to take Rohypnol twice a year? What about *her*
birthday?
Your point is fair enough, although it falls somewhat outside of the sort
of encounters we've been discussing. I can't offer a legal opinion, but
I would suggest that having sex with "a severely intoxicated person" is a
bad idea, whether you're married to them or not.
Ian "it also doesn't sound like much fun" Munro
--
" __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ "
|__| |\ | |__| |__| | |__| \ / |__| | | | |__ |__ | | |_/
| | | \| | | | \ |__ | | | | \ |__| |__ |__ __| |__| X | \ X
--Sid Willard
Carla Schack
Angus Johnston (ang...@panix.com) wrote:
: cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) writes:
: > A woman (or man) who chooses to become "blotto" is choosing
: > to place him or herself in a much higher risk circumstance than
: > otherwise.
: By my most generous reading of your posts, this seems to be your
: primary point---that people who do risky things take risks by doing so.
: If I'm right, rest easy. No one here disagrees with you.
think we're getting to the problem here.
: > While not responsible for or "consenting to" the specific
: > act of rape or robbery, assult etc. it _is_ incumbent on potential
: > victims _male and female alike_ to exercise some degree of caution
: > with respect to behavior choices in the real world. While this may
: > not translate to **specific** culpability or responsibility for the
: > individual awful things that happen to you for pursuing foolish
: > personal behavior...
: Well, hold on a second. You just kind of elided past the core question,
: didn't you? If "incumbency" doesn't translate into specific
: culpability, then, as I suspected, you're pretty much just telling us
: all to be careful out there. Excellent advice, and thanks for it.
: But if this incumbency _does_ (or "may" or could or should) translate
: into such culpability, then we're looking at a very different
: situation, and your casualness about the question is kind of chilling.
on (as you put it) the most generous reading of this thread, I'd like to
think that we're talking past each other here. it seems to me that there
are two seperate issues at stake here.
on one hand, there's personally accountability for your actions. that
accountability in this case is of a woman _to_herself_ after an assault.
its the ability to say (in far from all cases, or even the majority) "I
was violated, and I didn't choose that, but I might have made it easier
on him. that doesn't forgive him, or implicate me, but I don't ever want
to make it easy on anyone like that again." its a _private_ coming to
terms with your own actions and their possible repercusions, its not
easy, and its not something that should be shoved on a woman from outside.
on the other hand, there's the guilt of the assaulter. the decision made
to violate another person. and how "easy" it was for the assaulter has
nothing to do with the guilt attached to that person. in a court of law,
or in the private judgement that that person must come to, the decisions
of the victim, and things the victim might have done "safer" or "smarter"
have _no_place_. in deciding whether or not it was rape, the victims
consiousness level, who brought the victim to that level, the place, the
clothes, the reputation of the victim - none of it has any place in
deciding whether or not the victim was violated against consent.
see what I'm saying? two different issues - one private to the decisions
that we make every day about whether to take the safest possible route,
or the one that makes us feel alive and not already a victim, or a route
in between. the other issue - that of the consious decision to violate
another human being - is the only one that belongs in a courtroom. I'm
not saying the first issue isn't valid : like Agnus said, be careful and
watch out for yourself, good advice for anyone. but it has no bearing on
the second issue.
so once again, the answer to the question that brought these two issues
together and started this whole bloody digression "if she gets 'out of
it' on purpose, is it still rape?" is still YES! Its also pretty unsafe,
and in certain situations a little dumb, and the woman will have to deal
with that, but its still rape, and no guilt is detracted from the
attacker for it.
if this was all a matter of talking past each other, I hope this
seperates the issue. if it isn't, I hope the orriginal poster wises up.
The Big Kahuna Burger, (female and hoping this never becomes a more than
academic issue for me personally.)
csc...@emerald.tufts.edu
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "I love him, but every day I'm learning." -Eponine |
| http://www.tufts.edu/~cschack/ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Tom Morgan
In article <4m64gt$n...@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>,
imu...@scunix4.harvard.edu (Ian Munro) wrote:
>What was being discussed here was the question of whether a severly
>intoxicated person could consent to sex (not "consent to be raped", which
>is an oxymoron). Everyone, including you I think, responded "no". Case
>closed.
>
Well, that's certainly enlightening. I guess that means that I've committed
rape, and have been raped, quite a few times. In fact, in most of those
instances I and my partner(s) raped each other!
A severely intoxicated person *can* consent to sex; heck, I've done it and so
have many others (in fact, I'm unusually willing to consent under those
conditions). But consenting to sex while drunk, and being raped, have nothing
whatsoever to do with each other. If you consent while toasted and end up
wishing you hadn't the next day, that's called 'morning-after regrets.'
I've had a few of those, too.
It's ludicrous to assume that being drunk makes any sexual act you might
engage in an act of rape. Legalities be damned.
Tom
Scott Forbes
+-- cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) writes:
| My main point is
...completely and entirely off-topic for alt.folklore.urban. Thank you.
Scott "Note followups, and buh-bye." Forbes
--
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
If you finish before time is called, you may check your work on
this section only. Do not turn to any other section of the test.
Robin Colleen Moore
>Ken Kinser (ken.k...@medtronic.com) wrote:
>: Ian Munro wrote:
>: > What was being discussed here was the question of whether a severly
>: > intoxicated person could consent to sex (not "consent to be raped", which
>: > is an oxymoron). Everyone, including you I think, responded "no". Case
>: > closed.
>: Does this mean I have to start giving my wife a breathalyser test on my
>: birthday and anniversary?
>Your wife only gets to take Rohypnol twice a year? What about *her*
>birthday?
>Your point is fair enough, although it falls somewhat outside of the sort
>of encounters we've been discussing. I can't offer a legal opinion, but
>I would suggest that having sex with "a severely intoxicated person" is a
>bad idea, whether you're married to them or not.
I don't know what the law is in other states, but between being on a grand
jury several years ago and working in a law office, I have been able to
determine the following: In Georgia, intoxication is *not* considered a
defense in criminal cases, and you are just as culpable for whatever you did
as you would be if you had been stone cold sober at the time. Also, AFAIK,
one's partner's being intoxicated/impaired/unconscious renders any subsequent
sexual activity nonconsensual...being passed-out drunk in a bad situation is
admittedly foolish, and, depending on which particular police officers end up
dealing with one's case, they may be less than completely sympathetic (sad but
true), but legallly speaking, intoxication does *not* equal consent.
>Ian "it also doesn't sound like much fun" Munro
No shit, Sherlock... (no offense meant to you personally, Ian...) Maybe I'm
weird, but I *really* have to question the mentality (not to mention the
morality) of men who seem to think that it's OK, or even something to be proud
of, to take advantage of someone who's basically incapable of giving informed
consent...I guess some people don't care about the quality of the actual
sexual encounter as long as they can brag to their buddies that they "scored",
eh? Makes me wonder if my cynical lesbian friends who claim "all men really
want is to get their dicks wet" might be on to something...I know it's not
true in all cases, but it does seem to hold up in a disturbing number of
them...
Robin Colleen "yes, I *am* feeling misanthropic lately" Moore
ro...@mindspring.com--Beware of photographers bearing brownies...
Mama Hen/Net Goddess/Mad Photographer/Mighty Morphin Power Yenta
"What do you *mean*, I can't be a queen? It's *undemocratic*!"
E-mail me for info on the Reznor heater/alt.music.nin t-shirts!
Chris Peek
ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston) wrote:
>cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) writes:
>> To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
>> choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with" is
>> absurd.
>That depends, as several folks have noted, on how you define
>"responsibility."
I gone to pains in a previous post to make a specific definition of my
notion of "responsibility" in the context of this discussion. On the
off chance you missed it, as seems to be the case, I will reiterate
below:
-----"In this case it would be a self recognized "personal"
responsibility, nothing more or less and given current law would
obviously not mitigate the punishment of the criminal or put
additional legal burdens on the person who was harmed. Specifically
then... the burden of the "responsibility" in this context is a
personal one for the individual having made a foolish choice that put
them at greater risk to be harmed than might be the case otherwise. It
basically would involve their recognition that doing stupid, foolish
things increases the probability of undesirable consequences occurring
that one did not forsee or otherwise consent to and that it would be
best not to do these things in the future. Some people might call it
"common sense".---
>> A woman (or man) who chooses to become "blotto" is choosing
>> to place him or herself in a much higher risk circumstance than
>> otherwise.
>By my most generous reading of your posts, this seems to be your
>primary point---that people who do risky things take risks by doing so.
>If I'm right, rest easy. No one here disagrees with you.
>What position do you think you're arguing against, anyway---that women
>should be encouraged to drink themselves into unconsciousness among
>strangers? Again, rest easy.
Your generous nature and calming tone has me in thrall (but a rested
thrall).
>> While not responsible for or "consenting to" the specific
>> act of rape or robbery, assult etc. it _is_ incumbent on potential
>> victims _male and female alike_ to exercise some degree of caution
>> with respect to behavior choices in the real world. While this may
>> not translate to **specific** culpability or responsibility for the
>> individual awful things that happen to you for pursuing foolish
>> personal behavior...
>Well, hold on a second. You just kind of elided past the core question,
>didn't you? If "incumbency" doesn't translate into specific
>culpability, then, as I suspected, you're pretty much just telling us
>all to be careful out there.
My _complete_ quote might be instructive here _
-----To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with" is
absurd. A woman (or man) who chooses to become "blotto" is choosing
to place him or herself in a much higher risk circumstance than
otherwise. While not responsible for or "consenting to" the specific
act of rape or robbery, assult etc. it _is_ incumbent on potential
victims _male and female alike_ to exercise some degree of caution
with respect to behavior choices in the real world. While this may
not translate to **specific** culpability or responsibility for the
individual awful things that happen to you for pursuing foolish
personal behavior it does translate to being responsible (to
ourselves) for increasing the probability that those awful things will
happen if we do abjectly stupid and foolish things.------------
> Excellent advice, and thanks for it.
You're chopping up my quotes and assembling them into feeble straw men
but you're right... it _is_ excellent advice and "you're welcome".
>But if this incumbency _does_ (or "may" or could or should) translate
>into such culpability, then we're looking at a very different
>situation, and your casualness about the question is kind of chilling.
I am hardly "casual" about "the question" or I would not have to gone
to the pains that I have to respond to the questions posed, and
cannot for the life of me see any point in any of my posts where this
attitude could be inferred so I must assume this "casualness" is a
creature of your imagination.
I am not using Swahili. You don't need to "may or could or should" or
"translate" my statements regarding incumbent responsibility (to one's
self) in situations where one chooses to become "oblivious" . I
define the essence of "culpability" as it relates to _personal_
responsibility fairly precisely (see previous quoted post).
>Five years ago, a woman in New York named Krista Absalon got herself
>into exactly the situation we're describing here. She got drunk in a
>bar with her boyfriend, he skipped out on her, and she passed out in
>the bathroom while she was waiting for him to come back. While she was
>unconscious, she was raped by five men, one of whom was the bartender
>who had continued to feed her free drinks after she was heavily
>intoxicated.
>The men subsequently bragged to friends about the event, and when
>questioned by the police, four of the five admitted to what they had
>done. They were charged with first degree rape, but allowed to plea
>bargain down to a misdemeanor, sexual misconduct. Although all five men
>admitted their guilt in court, and although the maximum sentence for
>the reduced offense was a year in prison, they were each fined just
>$840 and allowed to go free.
>This is where the assigning of "culpability" to women who are raped
>leads, Chris. When you say it's "absurd" to suggest that a woman who is
>raped isn't responsible for the rape if she got drunk first, you're
>contributing to the climate in which the next Krista Absalon's
>attackers will be allowed to go free. You may not intend to, but you
>are.
Now you're simply raving. NO WHERE in any of my posts and the
statements contined therein do I suggest, infer or otherwise state
that a woman (or man) is _specifically_ responsible for the
*specific*, *individual*, awful things that may happen to them while
they are oblivious. What I _do_ state is that people who choose to
become "oblivious" _are_ RESPONSIBLE TO THEMSELVES _ for placing
themselves at much higher risk levels of being harmed than would be
the case otherwise if they were not "obvilious".
_No where_ do I state or infer that the penalities for rape should be
mitigated or greater burdens placed on the "obvilious" victim because
of the fact they were "obvilious". In point of fact I state precisely
the opposite which would be evident if your reading of my posts was as
"complete" as it was "generous".
Rape is an odious and hateful crime and (as I have previously stated)
the perpetrators should be punished to the full measure of the law. I
have gone to extraordinary lengths to make the point as clearly and
precisely as possible (obviously without complete success) that while
people may not be _specifically_ responsible for the terrible things
that happen to them they are responsible _to themselves_ if they
engage in stupid, dangerous, irresponsible behaviors that puts them at
much higher risk of being placed in harms way.
To maintain the "perspective" that suggests that it is some sort of
heretical, dangerous, slipperly slope of a precedent to make the point
that people should be cognizant regarding some level of common sense
responsibility to themselves, _not_ to stone themselves into
insensibility as this increases the potential for harm being
inflicted upon them ... and that people who chose to become
"obvilious" in uncertain situations have some degree of responsibility
for increasing the probability of their being placed in in harms way
.... even if they are not specifically responsible for the individual
harmful acts (rape, robbery, etc) done to them. Well I must admit
this "perspective" is so lacking in any semblance of common (or
uncommon) sense that it just baffles me completely.
But......I'll try one last time for your sake.
1: People who are victims of crime while "obvilious" are _no less_
deserving of sympathy and support than non-oblivious victims.
2: People who do abjectly stupid, irresponsible things (ie getting
blotto) that vastly increase the probabilty of their being placed in
harm's way do bear a significant measure of personal responsibility to
themselves to realize that doing these things can often lead to
unforseen and undesired negative consequences (ie rape, robbery etc.)
To say that a common sense recognition of 2 is incompatible with 1 and
that the state of "victimhood" must somehow be kept completely
sacrosanct and free of any "responsibility" issues for egregious
personal behaviors that increase the probability of being a victim
because of the risk that this will taint or somehow be unfair to the
victim is beyond absurd.
Victims are victims and the people that prey on them should be
punished and put away. If victims do stupid, irresponsible things (ie
drink themselves into a state of obliviousness) that put them at
greater risk of being "victimized" they should realize that they have
a responsibility to themselves **NOT TO DO THIS IN THE FUTURE**.
Short of semaphore flags I'll don't how much clearer I make make the
point.
Bob Church
In article <robin.907...@mindspring.com>
ro...@mindspring.com (Robin Colleen Moore) writes:
> weird, but I *really* have to question the mentality (not to mention the
> morality) of men who seem to think that it's OK, or even something to be proud
> of, to take advantage of someone who's basically incapable of giving informed
> consent...I guess some people don't care about the quality of the actual
> sexual encounter as long as they can brag to their buddies that they "scored",
> eh? Makes me wonder if my cynical lesbian friends who claim "all men really
> want is to get their dicks wet" might be on to something...I know it's not
> true in all cases, but it does seem to hold up in a disturbing number of
> them...
>
> Robin Colleen "yes, I *am* feeling misanthropic lately" Moore
There may be another explanation. I live and work in a college town.
There have been over a half dozen reported sexual assaults in the last
year or so. They've all involved young men who couldn't handle the
combination of too much alcohol and testosterone. They've all regretted
their actions the next day, but that doesn't do the victim much good.
Until the University and community realize that uncontrolled drinking
is a serious problem and begin to educate people about all the possible
consequences, the problem will probably get worse. Alcohol awareness
programs now use scenes from auto accidents and emergency room
treatments as part of their presentations. Women are warned about their
increased danger of rape while they are intoxicated. I suspect that if
they included some scenes of young men watching their futures go down
the drain as they are sentenced for sexual assault, they may have more
impact.
Bob Church
Barbara Mikkelson
Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Makes me wonder if my cynical lesbian friends who claim "all men really
> want is to get their dicks wet" might be on to something...
Anyone who believes that has never tried to talk a fella into taking his
weekly bath.
Barbara "I thought the only General Lies I had to be concerned about was
Saddam Hussein" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | Any content related to urban folklore,
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | Canada, hockey or tv in the above post
| is purely incidental. - Dan Case
Katherine Catmull
In article <4mel05$5...@shore4.intercom.net>, cp...@shore.intercom.net
(Chris Peek) wrote:
> Victims are victims and the people that prey on them should be
> punished and put away. If victims do stupid, irresponsible things (ie
> drink themselves into a state of obliviousness) that put them at
> greater risk of being "victimized" they should realize that they have
> a responsibility to themselves **NOT TO DO THIS IN THE FUTURE**.
Well let me put your mind at ease. The women I know who have been raped
spent many years afraid to go out alone, afraid to enter their own houses
at night unless someone went in with them to turn on the lights and check
around--a service I have performed a heartbreaking number of times--and
afraid to sit next to a strange man on a park bench in broad daylight.
The idea that women who have been raped need your scolding to to keep them
from getting dead drunk in a bar with a bunch of strangers is hilarious.
Kate "and profoundly ignorant" Catmull
--
"Be the voice of night and Florida in my ear."
Dave Wilton
In <4mangp$jgs...@ris.lane.or.us> n...@all.welcome (Tom Morgan) writes:
>A severely intoxicated person *can* consent to sex; heck, I've done it
>and so have many others (in fact, I'm unusually willing to consent
>under those conditions). But consenting to sex while drunk, and being
>raped, have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. If you consent
>while toasted and end up wishing you hadn't the next day, that's
>called 'morning-after regrets.'
Generally in the US (it certainly varies a bit depending on the State),
intoxication is not an excuse for criminal or civil liability. If you
are drunk or high you are still responsible for your actions.
While I do not know the case law pertaining to rape and drunkeness,
morally I would think there is a considerable difference between a
drunk consenting to sex and getting someone drunk in order to have sex
with them. While, the former may be bad judgement, I would consider
some cases of the latter to be rape. In the latter cases, the offender
would be deliberately impairing the judgement of another person in
order to violate them.
Similarly, depending on the circumstances, hitting on someone who is
already trashed out of thier skulls or otherwise impaired is also
predatory behavior and could be considered rape.
--Dave Wilton
dwi...@ix.netcom.com
Angus Johnston
Chris Peek replied to me as follows:
> >> To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
> >> choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with" is
> >> absurd.
>
> >That depends, as several folks have noted, on how you define
> >"responsibility."
>
> I gone to pains in a previous post to make a specific definition of my
> notion of "responsibility" in the context of this discussion.
You misspelled "simultaneous"---your post and mine were written on the
same evening, and crossed in the ether.
At any rate, your definition didn't clarify much. Let's take a look at
it:
> In this case it would be a self recognized "personal"
> responsibility, nothing more or less
If it's a self-recognized responsibility, then who are you to declare
when it exists and when it doesn't?
Nothing in your other comments on the subject, in which you have
delivered sweeping declarations of which classes of behavior are
"responsible" and which are not, have suggested that you've been
referring to the private process by which an individual makes peace
with her actions, which is what "self-recognized" strongly implies.
Seems to me that what you're arguing for is an _objective_
responsibility to keep oneself out of harm's way, and it's that kind of
talk that leads down the road to, if not legal, then moral culpability.
Where you stand on that road is still not remotely clear.
The word "responsibile" is a fraught one, and you are using it in a
somewhat idiosyncratic way. If I weren't convinced that everybody on
the planet is sick of this thread, I'd suggest that you try to rephrase
your claim without using That Word. I suspect you might wind up with
something akin to the more "generous" interpretations that I proposed
in my last post, the post which you savaged so heartily.
Oh, and trim your quotes before posting. Your last was nearly two
hundred lines long, and included everything I had written, including my
sig.
Bob Rodgers
>>throughout recorded history and it's hardly a surprise that there are
>>also bad or predatory people who will rape a woman under the same
>>circumstances.
>But it *is* surprising, or should be, that people claim that the rapist
>in such a situation should not be prosecuted. No one says this about the
>robber/murderer in such a situation.
I think the issue is this: Lots of people get intoxicated. They get
intoxicated to go dancing, before they drive*, before they have sex.
And so on.
Yet the argument that intoxicated == raped says that even if the
woman, intoxicated, consents or even initiates sex (posibly with an
intoxicated man), she was raped.
That's parochial and silly. Women are not such children that they
need the government to step in and punish any man who dares come close
to treading on these flowers of innocence. If a woman consents, it
makes a fair amount of sense to conclude that she consented.
That's different than rape, where there is a clear lack of consent.
Being intoxicated does not render one incapable of making decisions --
put a gun in the hands of someone who's just swallowed a pint of vodka
and tell them to kill someone -- they wont. They can decide. The
idea that a woman cannot decide whether she wants to have sex after as
little as one drink is silly (and pretty insulting to women). Yet
those are the laws.
One obviously can't consent to anything if one is unconcious, so
that's a non-issue and to use it as the strawman to knock down the
question of whether a women can consentually engage in sex after a few
drinks is a shallow, hollow thing. If both the man and the women were
drinking,m and both consent to sex, they both raped one another?
Frankly, there is a component of personal & political power involved.
The "no witness" rape laws around the country are the subject of an
awful lot of abuse by women who file false rape accusations (according
to the FBI UCR, and only counting those that were proven false or
recanted). There are very similar political motives behind the "1
drink maximum" laws. Absolute power and all that. The corruption is
already there.
Of course, if the political wing wants to take up an issue, the total
lack of prosecution of women who file false, or multiple false, rape
complaints is as clear an example of the patriarchal coddling of women
("oh, poor dears, you were upset..") by the police when dealing with
false reports.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
rsro...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~rsrodger/home.htm (new & under construction)
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~rsrodger/project.htm (current project)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Colleen Moore
>Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Makes me wonder if my cynical lesbian friends who claim "all men really
>> want is to get their dicks wet" might be on to something...
>Anyone who believes that has never tried to talk a fella into taking his
>weekly bath.
Damn...now how could I forget that one? After all, I only live in a town
*full* of people who consider themselves "too cool to wash"! (Michael Stipe,
please pick up the white courtesy phone....)
Robin Colleen "yep, and you can smell him halfway across the bar, too" Moore
Carla Schack
Bob Rodgers (rsro...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Yet the argument that intoxicated == raped says that even if the
: woman, intoxicated, consents or even initiates sex (posibly with an
: intoxicated man), she was raped.
I really have to ask, did you come in late on this, or are you just
willingly oblivious to what the conversation topic actually is?
: That's parochial and silly. Women are not such children that they
: need the government to step in and punish any man who dares come close
: to treading on these flowers of innocence. If a woman consents, it
: makes a fair amount of sense to conclude that she consented.
ah, so if a woman is smashed out of her mind, a man says "do you want to
do it?" and she nods her head because she has no idea whats going on then
that is consent? and if the guy just ignors her protests once she does
realise whats going on, it doesn't matter? or if a woman is passed out
and therefore can't say no, thats consent? maybe you should reread what
everyone else has actually been talking about.
: That's different than rape, where there is a clear lack of consent.
: Being intoxicated does not render one incapable of making decisions --
: put a gun in the hands of someone who's just swallowed a pint of vodka
: and tell them to kill someone -- they wont. They can decide. The
: idea that a woman cannot decide whether she wants to have sex after as
: little as one drink is silly (and pretty insulting to women). Yet
: those are the laws.
are they? (heavy sacasm marks) you know, I would have been willing to bet
that they laws have to do with a person's judgement being heavily
impaired, and wouldn't apply to "as little as one drink" and it doesn't
even apply to the situation at hand which is the rape of a woman who is
incapacitated or unconsious.
: Of course, if the political wing wants to take up an issue, the total
: lack of prosecution of women who file false, or multiple false, rape
: complaints is as clear an example of the patriarchal coddling of women
: ("oh, poor dears, you were upset..") by the police when dealing with
: false reports.
and what exactly are the laws related to procecuting people who pick the
wronge person out of a lineup or lie about theft or assult. you know,
except for purgery (sp?) charges, there is no way to have such laws
without gagging victims who might not be able to completely press their
case.
*sigh* why do I respond to posts like this? gotta find something better
to do with my energy.
--
The Big Kahuna Burger,
Rhenda Iris Strub
gn...@server.ee.Virginia.EDU (Greg Fife) wrote:
[blame the victim along with the rapist crap deleted]
[gee, I don't really like rape let's be sure & punish those
rapists deleted too]
> A woman
> may reasonably argue that she SHOULD be able to live in a world where
> she can become drunk anywhere she wishes,
Damn decent of you to allow that.
> but the ugly truth is that
> women DO NOT live in such a world. Neither do men, for that matter.
Half right, pal. When was the last time you heard of a man
raped at a frat party? You can list a lot of places you
couldn't safely go hoist a few because you would likely not be
among people you could trust. Big fucking deal. The glaring
truth is women are at risk most any place you would feel safe.
All the time. And we never forget it.
>Just because a rapist did something that was morally reprehensible does
>not mean that a victim did not do something that was foolish.
And just because you're stupid doesn't mean I'm smart. What is
your point here? I'm guessing you don't even realizing you're
peddling the same old tired "watch yourself out there, honey"
horseshit that women have to hear from the time we are toddlers.
Some men make the world an unsafe place for us, and then there's
guys like you that think you are actually helping by warning us
about it. Caging *US* with fear is not the answer.
> Just because a victim did something foolish does not in any way diminish
>the crime of a rapist.
You don't even know what you're saying here. Labeling the
victim as having done "something foolish" diminishes her
innocence and excuses the criminal. Don't be a dolt.
>Our desire to avoid "blaming the victim" should not get in the way of
>the necessary work of educating the potential victims -
Women have been educated since the beginning of time to protect
our bodies by limiting the opportunity for some sexual predator
to get at it. *WE* don't need more education, *we* know the
score, pal. The game is rigged against us, always has been. It
was not many years ago that "friends" like you kept us "safe" by
advising us not to wear short skirts or go out after dark
unescorted.
>and the potential victimizers.
Finally, you've uttered a shred of truth. Educating the
potential victimizers is the *only* answer.
>Greg "fire every college administrator who won't tell the truth
> about rape" Fife
It's the ones who do tell the truth that are getting fired.
Rape won't stop until men stop it.
Rhenda "and we can do without friends like you" Strub
Kate Orman
[Follow-ups set to talk.rape]
In article <4mfls1$n...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
Bob Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) wrote:
>>cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) writes:
>>>Getting blotto has gotten many men robbed, beaten and killed
>>>throughout recorded history and it's hardly a surprise that there are
>>>also bad or predatory people who will rape a woman under the same
>>>circumstances.
>
>>But it *is* surprising, or should be, that people claim that the rapist
>>in such a situation should not be prosecuted. No one says this about the
>>robber/murderer in such a situation.
>
>I think the issue is this: Lots of people get intoxicated. They get
>intoxicated to go dancing, before they drive*, before they have sex.
>And so on.
>
>Yet the argument that intoxicated == raped says that even if the
>woman, intoxicated, consents or even initiates sex (posibly with an
>intoxicated man), she was raped.
>
>That's parochial and silly. Women are not such children that they
>need the government to step in and punish any man who dares come close
>to treading on these flowers of innocence. If a woman consents, it
>makes a fair amount of sense to conclude that she consented.
Unless she was so drunk that she didn't know whether she was consenting
or not.
Men often get women drunk so that they can have sex with them. This isn't
me being sexist - on Koss' date rape survey, men *admitted* to doing
this. Getting your partner sloshed so that they can't resist you, or
don't know what you're doing, is rape - by *legal* standards.
>That's different than rape, where there is a clear lack of consent.
>Being intoxicated does not render one incapable of making decisions --
>put a gun in the hands of someone who's just swallowed a pint of vodka
>and tell them to kill someone -- they wont. They can decide. The
>idea that a woman cannot decide whether she wants to have sex after as
>little as one drink is silly (and pretty insulting to women). Yet
>those are the laws.
>
>One obviously can't consent to anything if one is unconcious, so
>that's a non-issue and to use it as the strawman to knock down the
>question of whether a women can consentually engage in sex after a few
>drinks is a shallow, hollow thing. If both the man and the women were
>drinking,m and both consent to sex, they both raped one another?
>
>Frankly, there is a component of personal & political power involved.
>The "no witness" rape laws around the country are the subject of an
>awful lot of abuse by women who file false rape accusations (according
>to the FBI UCR, and only counting those that were proven false or
>recanted). There are very similar political motives behind the "1
>drink maximum" laws. Absolute power and all that. The corruption is
>already there.
The UCR? I'd like to see the statistics to which you are referring.
>Of course, if the political wing wants to take up an issue, the total
>lack of prosecution of women who file false, or multiple false, rape
>complaints is as clear an example of the patriarchal coddling of women
>("oh, poor dears, you were upset..") by the police when dealing with
>false reports.
In fact, women can be and are prosecuted for making false allegations of
a felony. (Kanin's much-quoted paper points this out - drop me a line and
I'll give you the URL.)
--
__
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au:80/~korman
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Bob Rodgers wrote:
>
> Yet the argument that intoxicated == raped says that even if the
> woman, intoxicated, consents or even initiates sex (posibly with an
> intoxicated man), she was raped.
> drinking,m and both consent to sex, they both raped one another?
>
I'm reminded of a case in Clarksville, Tennessee (or Fort Campbell, KY,
which is really the same place, look it up), in 1971 (poss. spring 1972),
in which a charge of rape was brought against a soldier at Fort Campbell,
and finally thrown out because of conflicting evidence. Seems that two
men, both soldiers, had taken two women out on a drinking spree. Somewhere
during the night, according to both men and both women, one of the
soldiers had sex with one of the women. All four of them clearly remember
this taking place, but none of the four could remember who had sex with
whom, each thinking that they had witnessed the event rather than
participating in it. They also were unclear as to whether or not both
parties were willing participants.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
I've NEVER been THAT drunk.
Chris Peek
ka...@bga.com (Katherine Catmull) wrote:
>In article <4mel05$5...@shore4.intercom.net>, cp...@shore.intercom.net
>(Chris Peek) wrote:
>> Victims are victims and the people that prey on them should be
>> punished and put away. If victims do stupid, irresponsible things (ie
>> drink themselves into a state of obliviousness) that put them at
>> greater risk of being "victimized" they should realize that they have
>> a responsibility to themselves **NOT TO DO THIS IN THE FUTURE**.
>Well let me put your mind at ease. The women I know who have been raped
>spent many years afraid to go out alone, afraid to enter their own houses
>at night unless someone went in with them to turn on the lights and check
>around--a service I have performed a heartbreaking number of times--and
>afraid to sit next to a strange man on a park bench in broad daylight.
>The idea that women who have been raped need your scolding to to keep them
>from getting dead drunk in a bar with a bunch of strangers is hilarious.
I'm glad you find such halarity in such a serious subject. If you had
bothered to read the discussion and preceding posts in any detail
before making your pithy contribution you may have noticed this
discussion has nothing to do with "scolding" as such but is an
extended discussion regarding the notion of individual
"responsibility" and social behavior with respect to what should and
should not be expected of an individual in the circumstances of making
the behavioral choice of drinking one's self into "oblivion" and
putting one's self in harms way as a result of this behavior.
If you want to meaningfully participate in the discussion please read
the preceding threads in full. I will email them to you if your server
has dropped them. Otherwise your non-germane, ad hoc comments on a
very small section of the discussion are sort of well .....
"profoundly ignorant".
Chris Peek
ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston) wrote:
>Chris Peek replied to me as follows:
>> >> To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
>> >> choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with" is
>> >> absurd.
>>
>> >That depends, as several folks have noted, on how you define
>> >"responsibility."
>>
>> I have gone to pains in a previous post to make a specific definition of my
>> notion of "responsibility" in the context of this discussion.
>At any rate, your definition didn't clarify much. Let's take a look at
>it:
>> In this case it would be a self recognized "personal"
>> responsibility, nothing more or less
>If it's a self-recognized responsibility, then who are you to declare
>when it exists and when it doesn't?
>Nothing in your other comments on the subject, in which you have
>delivered sweeping declarations of which classes of behavior are
>"responsible" and which are not,
Sigh..........
This is a truly convoluted interpretation of my statements. My
"sweeping declarations" regarding "classes of behavior" as you term
them, were generally specific to the instance of someone "choosing"
to become "oblivious" and making the point that if someone chooses to
pursue this behavior (becoming stoned to point of obliviousness) they
are "responsible" (to themselves) to a significant degree for
increasing the probability that this behavior may/will place them in
harms way.
I was under the impression that this was an easily understandable
statement of fact and would be generally accepted as a basic, common
sense understanding by rational human beings. But as evidenced by
your responses, not all intelligent, rational (_of which you are most
certainly both_) humans agree with this point of view. So what else
is new...
> have suggested that you've been referring to the private process by which an individual makes peace
>with her actions, which is what "self-recognized" strongly implies.
>Seems to me that what you're arguing for is an _objective_
>responsibility to keep oneself out of harm's way, and it's that kind of
>talk that leads down the road to, if not legal, then moral culpability.
>Where you stand on that road is still not remotely clear.
I suppose this is the kernel of our contention and your question is a
_good_ one. Let me make my position clear.
If I understand your use of the term "objective" to mean that a person
should ( in addition to a strictly personal "recognition") have some
sort of externally recognized duty as a member of society not to
pursue irresponsible, potentially self harming behaviors then yes... I
will step out upon the limb you intend to saw and state that in my
opinion, that in addition to a strictly subjective personal
"responsibility" to one's self there is _also_ a degree of personal
"objective" responsibility to one's self in our behavioral decisions
as social actors. This is a position I had not specifically taken
heretofore in this discussion but I take now.
If one is going to be a social actor and rely on "society" to
prosecute wrongs done to one's self I would contend _there is_ a
degree of objective moral responsibility for an individual to avoid
(if it is practicable to do so) stupid, irresponsible behaviors that
will put them at much higher risk of unnecessairly being placed in
harm's way.
Are you seriously holding the position that a woman or man who chooses
to become stoned to the point of oblivion does _not_ bear some
personal moral responsibility for placing themselves in harm's way
even if they are not specifically responsible or culpable for the
specific harmful acts a predator may do to them?
People live and interact in the real world and unfortunately it can
often be a very dangerous place. Intelligent, rational people who live
in the real world understand this. It is my belief and I think the
belief of the majority of intelligent humanity that normally
intelligent, rational people who may on occasion pursue stupid,
irresponsible personal behaviors (like stoning one's self into
obliviousness), that vastly increase the probability of their being
harmed _ do_ bear some objective moral responsibility for increasing
the probability that they will be harmed.
To date your main point seems to be that even considering any degree
of "responsibility" objective, subjective or otherwise is not tenable
in the context of a person who has been harmed regardless of how
stupid, irresponsible or self endangering their behavioral choices
may have been. You have given an example of a tragic and serious
mis-carriage of justice and written ominously of "where this leads".
Please explain _why_ is it logically, common-sensically and
intellectually impossible (from your perspective) for a "victim" of a
specific harmful acts to bear some degree of personal responsibility
(objective, subjective or otherwise) for pursuing abjectly stupid,
irresponsible behaviors that will place them at vastly greater risk of
being subject these harmful acts?
>The word "responsibile" is a fraught one, and you are using it in a
>somewhat idiosyncratic way.
Do tell.....
With regard to my "idiosyncratic" definition of "responsible" please
pick up a dictionary. In case you don't have one handy I have provided
a definition from Webster's below . Please free to use the first
common citation (#1) as an example of how I define "responsible".
In the cases where it is "within one's power" to choose to become
oblivious or not it is behavioral choice for which one is
"responsible".
re-spon-si-ble (ri spon'suh buhl) adj.
*** 1. accountable, as for something within
one's power.***
2. involving responsibility: a responsible
position.
3. chargeable with being the source or
occasion of something (usu. fol. by for).
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and
therefore accountable: The defendant is
not responsible for his actions.
5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.
6. reliable or dependable, as in conducting
one's affairs; trustworthy.
> If I weren't convinced that everybody on
>the planet is sick of this thread,
Yes.... it has gotten pretty tedious at this point...but several of
the points you made are good ones and well worth discussing.
>I'd suggest that you try to rephrase
>your claim without using That Word.
>I suspect you might wind up with
>something akin to the more "generous" interpretations that I proposed
>in my last post, the post which you savaged so heartily.
>Angus Johnston
Rhenda Iris Strub
cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris Peek) wrote way too much
horseshit for way too long, including this:
> ...doing stupid, foolish things increases the probability
> of undesirable consequences occurring that one did not forsee...
Like, maybe, you could not forsee that your stupid, foolish
prattle would lead me to call you a hopeless misogynist
butt-wipe? Maybe you're just a hopeless clueless wanker who
refuses to trim his quotes. Maybe you're just a hopeless
trolling moron. Whatever you are, I'm sick of the tripe you've
been spewing. You are not only dead fucking wrong you are
colluding with the predators.
More pearls from Mr. Peek:
>Rape is an odious and hateful crime and (as I have previously stated)
>the perpetrators should be punished to the full measure of the law.
You don't really believe that or you wouldn't insist on
examining the "responsibility" of the victim along with the
culpability of the predator.
>I have gone to extraordinary lengths to make the point as clearly and
>precisely as possible (obviously without complete success)
No shit. You have gone further than reason should tolerate.
It's time for you to shut up. I have come to resent not only
the bandwidth you have consumed but the very air you breath. Be
gone evil one.
A rape apologist like you would have faired well in the Hitler
regime.
Rhenda "that's right, I said Hitler" Strub
Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
Dorothy Marker
Who brought up the rape charges when neither of the women thought they
had sex? The victim has to press charges, the state cannot. Since
both women thought they had just watched, neither of them could press
charges.
Dorothy Marker
Mike D'Angelo
Chris Peek (cp...@shore.intercom.net) wrote:
: ang...@panix.com (Angus Johnston) wrote:
: >Seems to me that what you're arguing for is an _objective_
: >responsibility to keep oneself out of harm's way, and it's that kind
: >of talk that leads down the road to, if not legal, then moral
: >culpability.
: If I understand your use of the term "objective" to mean that a person
: should ( in addition to a strictly personal "recognition") have some
: sort of externally recognized duty as a member of society not to
: pursue irresponsible, potentially self harming behaviors then yes... I
: will step out upon the limb you intend to saw and state that in my
: opinion, that in addition to a strictly subjective personal
: "responsibility" to one's self there is _also_ a degree of personal
: "objective" responsibility to one's self in our behavioral decisions
: as social actors. This is a position I had not specifically taken
: heretofore in this discussion but I take now.
Up to now, this discussion has been concerned specifically with a
situation in which a woman knowingly drinks herself into semi- or
unconsciousness, and is subsequently raped. Rape is, for obvious reasons,
a topic about which most people have very strong and very emotional
opinions, so let's see what happens if we substitute a slightly more
innocuous situation. Let's say that someone intentionally leaves her door
unlocked, and is subsequently robbed. Here's how I currently understand
Chris and Angus' positions as they would relate to that issue:
ANGUS: Yes, you should lock your door, but leaving your door unlocked
doesn't give anyone the right to rob you.
CHRIS: You should lock your door. While leaving your door unlocked
doesn't give anyone the right to rob you, you have a societal
obligation, though one without any legal force, to lock your door.
If you do leave your door unlocked, and are robbed as a result,
we will try to recover your property and punish the thieves. But
we'll also, um, glare at you for failing to live up to your
obligation by locking the door. Or maybe we won't glare at you,
but you should be glaring at yourself. We think.
Did I get this wrong? Because if I tend to agree more with my
hypothetical Angus position than with my hypothetical Chris position.
I'm now imagining a scenario in which a large man walks right into me on
the street. "Watch it!" I say, annoyed. The man pulls out a gun and
shoots me in the chest, badly wounding me. Chris Peek, wandering by,
witnesses the incident, heroically tackles my assailant, and holds him
until the police arrive to put the cuffs on him. He then comes to me, as
I lie bleeding on the sidewalk, and says sadly, "What were you thinking,
mouthing off to a big guy like that?"
Chris, I just got shot. I don't need a lecture, okay?
Mike "personal objective responsibility?!?" D'Angelo
Michael Ejercito
Dorothy Marker (jwma...@on-ramp.net) wrote:
: Who brought up the rape charges when neither of the women thought they
: had sex? The victim has to press charges, the state cannot. Since
: both women thought they had just watched, neither of them could press
: charges.
:
: Dorothy Marker
thr procedure of filing rape charges under military law.
Michael
Andras Kovacs
jwma...@on-ramp.net (Dorothy Marker) wrote:
>"Charles Wm. Dimmick" <dim...@ccsu.ctstateu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Bob Rodgers wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet the argument that intoxicated == raped says that even if the
>>> woman, intoxicated, consents or even initiates sex (posibly with an
>>> intoxicated man), she was raped.
>>> Being intoxicated does not render one incapable of making decisions --
>>> If both the man and the women were
>>> drinking,m and both consent to sex, they both raped one another?
>>>
>
>>I'm reminded of a case in Clarksville, Tennessee (or Fort Campbell, KY,
>>which is really the same place, look it up), in 1971 (poss. spring 1972),
>>in which a charge of rape was brought against a soldier at Fort Campbell,
>>and finally thrown out because of conflicting evidence. Seems that two
>>men, both soldiers, had taken two women out on a drinking spree. Somewhere
>>during the night, according to both men and both women, one of the
>>soldiers had sex with one of the women. All four of them clearly remember
>>this taking place, but none of the four could remember who had sex with
>>whom, each thinking that they had witnessed the event rather than
>>participating in it. They also were unclear as to whether or not both
>>parties were willing participants.
>
>had sex? The victim has to press charges, the state cannot. Since
>both women thought they had just watched, neither of them could press
>charges.
Um, not exactly. The State files the charges in the name of the People; the 'Victim'
is 'only' a prosecution witness. Of course, if the victim is unwilling to testify,
the prosectution is setting itself up for a lost case...
Andras
----
Madeleine Page
Says Chris Peek:
>>> >> To insist that you have no responsibility for what ensues if you
>>> >> choose to become oblivious in the company of "the man you're with"
is
>>> >> absurd.
And then, about a woman who drinks herself comatose while out with a guy:
>>> In this case it would be a self recognized "personal"
>>> responsibility, nothing more or less
And again:
>if someone chooses to
>pursue this behavior (becoming stoned to point of obliviousness) they
>are "responsible" (to themselves) to a significant degree for
>increasing the probability that this behavior may/will place them in
>harms way.
>
>I was under the impression that this was an easily understandable
>statement of fact and would be generally accepted as a basic, common
>sense understanding by rational human beings.
[snip]
>a person
>should ( in addition to a strictly personal "recognition") have some
>sort of externally recognized duty as a member of society not to
>pursue irresponsible, potentially self harming behaviors
[and snip]
>If one is going to be a social actor and rely on "society" to
>prosecute wrongs done to one's self I would contend _there is_ a
>degree of objective moral responsibility for an individual to avoid
>(if it is practicable to do so) stupid, irresponsible behaviors that
>will put them at much higher risk of unnecessairly being placed in
>harm's way.
Chris seems a little taken aback at the opposition he encounters to his
"common sense" response to the issue here. Perhaps if we move it away
from the issue of rape, it will be easier for him to understand the
objections raised.
Let's translate the gender politics into racial politics and see how the
conclusions sit with Chris. Would he argue that blacks who move into
"good" (read white) neighbourhoods should accept that they are
"responsible to themselves" for bricks through their windows? For their
children getting beaten up on the way to school? That black youths who
walk in all-white neighbourhoods and are attacked should accept that they
have a recognized duty as a member of society not to pursue
irresponsible, potentially self harming behaviours?
Funny how it looks a lot uglier when it's black/white rather than
female/male, isn't it?
As a woman, I am constantly told of the dangers of moving about the world
like a free adult. I should not be out alone after dark, even in the
best neighbourhoods in town. I should be on guard against intruders in
hotels as well as at home. I should minimise my risk by not walking
alone in the evening, by staying home or having someone (male) accompany
me.
In a similar vein, as a young woman I was constantly warned of the
dangers of dates, of "leading him on", of "being a tease", "giving him
the wrong idea": like other women of my generation, I was essentially
given sole responsibility for the sexual outcome of any encounter with a
man. If I accepted an invitation for coffee or a drink in a man's flat,
that was seen as tantamount to agreeing to intercourse with him. Indeed,
at that time in Britain, the rape victim's sexual history was admissable
evidence. If you had had more than a couple of lovers and were raped,
there was no hope at all of conviction: having had, say, six lovers was
sufficient evidence that you lacked any capacity to make sexual choices
at all. Do you have any idea what it's like to be warned all the time
about the possiblity of rape and yet to be legally defined as not
rapable? As legally disqualified from making any choice about who you go
to bed with?
I tried to address this with Chris in an earlier post, and got a fatherly
tsk tsk response that addressed me as if I were in my late teens and
Really A Bit Wild. Not quite it, Chris. I'm fifty, a professional, I
live in a relatively safe neighbourhood in a very safe city. All I want
is the freedom to go about my business in the same way as a man my age
could and would. Not some idiot complacently telling me I have the moral
responsibility to live in purdah because to do otherwise is "asking for
trouble". Do you know how long I've listened to that crap, how hard
people have tried to control women with it? It is precisely the argument
that puts women in chadors - their faces and hair are such glowing
temptations to male lust that they must be covered.
See the slippery slope you're on?
Madeleine "and no, this doesn't belong on afu, but it's still an
important discussion" Page
--
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> > according to both men and both women, one of the
> >soldiers had sex with one of the women. All four of them clearly remember
> >this taking place, but none of the four could remember who had sex with
> >whom, each thinking that they had witnessed the event rather than
> >participating in it. They also were unclear as to whether or not both
> >parties were willing participants.
>
> Who brought up the rape charges when neither of the women thought they
> had sex? The victim has to press charges, the state cannot. Since
> both women thought they had just watched, neither of them could press
> charges.
>
The account in the Clarksville paper at the time was not clear on this
point, the impression being that one of the women had complained that
one of the soldiers had raped the other woman. It may have been the
military authorities at the base investigating the complaint, as opposed
to the local Clarksville police or the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept.,
in which case the protection under the law would not be the same. Even if
it was the Sheriff's Dept., they weren't very careful in those days in
following the letter of the law. You could get arrested for laws they
made up on the spot.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Chris Peek
My, my.... Rhenda .....where to begin with such a rich festival of
your stupidity to choose from?
If we ignore the foul language, irrelevancies and grunting, sweating
attempts to make a rational statement that leaves about .01 percent of
your post having anything to say about the issue....which in sum
appears to be that... _any_ examination or discussion of a persons
"responsibility" ( to themselves) for their own personal safety
regarding making the behavioral choice to get "stoned into oblivion"
and thus vastly increasing the probability of putting themselves in
harm's way is equal to direct "collusion" with predators, and despite
direct statements to the contrary is actually part of some diabolical
plot to reduce predator's culpability for their hateful and disgusting
crimes.
Hmmnn.....I suppose in some lobotomized, mentally turgid, logically
contorted and perverse way there are people who could reach this
conclusion, unfortunately for your social calendar most of them are
institutionalized.
If you are "sick" of the discussion you can certainly aim your mouse
clicks elsewhere. It takes an fair effort to get to this specific
thread and judging by the reasoned, witty and incisive way you express
yourself the energy you are expending is obviously sapping your rather
limited supply of mental energy which you could better direct
elsewhere such as checking your medication and changing your Depends.
If memory serves I believe it was Hitler and his fellow Nazi's that
tried to suppress opinions they disagreed with by foul mouthed name
calling, irrational appeals to people's basest emotions and the
proposition that if you yell loud enough and repeat nonsense often
enough eventually people will believe it to be true. I think you and
the Nazi's would have found _much_ to admire in each other as your
approach to open and free discussion about important contemporary
issues is much the same.
Mike D'Angelo
Michael Heinz (mhe...@ssw.com) wrote:
: mqd...@is2.nyu.edu (Mike D'Angelo) wrote:
:
: >I'm now imagining a scenario in which a large man walks right into me
: >on the street. "Watch it!" I say, annoyed. The man pulls out a gun
: >and shoots me in the chest, badly wounding me. Chris Peek, wandering
: >by, witnesses the incident, heroically tackles my assailant, and holds
: >him until the police arrive to put the cuffs on him. He then comes to
: >me, as I lie bleeding on the sidewalk, and says sadly, "What were you
: >thinking, mouthing off to a big guy like that?"
: Mike, the problem with this example is that it doesn't compare - you
: had no reasonable cause to think that encounter with that man would be
: violent.
I don't recall that the original topic of this discussion concerned women
drinking themselves into unconsciousness in the presence of convicted
rapists who'd walked into the bar with their rap sheets stapled to their
foreheads. Maybe those articles haven't reached my site yet.
At any rate, it doesn't matter. Stupidity is not the same thing as
responsibility. A man who rapes a woman is 100% responsible for his
heinous, odious, sickening behavior. The woman is 0% responsible, even if
she deliberately drank herself into oblivion after he handed her a signed
and notarized statement declaring his intention of violating her the
moment her attention wandered. Incredibly foolish, yes; even a tiny bit
responsible for the crime, no.
Mike " " D'Angelo
Mike D'Angelo
rhe...@rapidnet.com (Rhenda Iris Strub) wrote:
: Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
: Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
: Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
While I disagree with (or, more accurately, fail to understand) Chris
Peek's sentiments regarding 'personal objective responsibility,' nothing
he's written to date strikes me as particularly reprehensible. I think
you've trotted out Adolf a bit too hastily.
However, if he doesn't start trimming people's signatures, at the very
least, in his followups, I'm going to start comparing him with Matthew
Wiener.
Mike "l, d, r" D'Angelo [willing to withdraw this if Hats object]
mqd...@is2.nyu.edu I don't usually include a .sig,
New York University but I'm including one here. If
Chris Peek includes it in a followup,
I will laugh and laugh and laugh.
Michele Tepper
Mike D'Angelo <mqd...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>rhe...@rapidnet.com (Rhenda Iris Strub) wrote:
>
>: Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
>: Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler-Hitler
>
>Peek's sentiments regarding 'personal objective responsibility,' nothing
>he's written to date strikes me as particularly reprehensible. I think
>you've trotted out Adolf a bit too hastily.
Two, count 'em, two followups, and neither of them recognizes Rhenda's
attempt to invoke Godwin's Law (although, you know, Rhenda, one of the
corollaries is that invoking Hitler specifically to end a thread never
works).
They're true, all of those Imminent Death of The Net Predicted,
Claymation at 11 posts are true. I weep for humanity.
Although, you know, if Nick Parks would provide the animation, I could
live through it.
Michele "lads! organize yourselves!" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "[Novelists] learn to drive, unlike poets (poets don't
mte...@panix.com drive. Never trust a poet who can drive...)"
-- Martin Amis, _The Information_
Will Wheeler
In article <4mt4gr$2...@panix2.panix.com>, mte...@panix.com (Michele Tepper)
says:
>Two, count 'em, two followups, and neither of them recognizes Rhenda's
>attempt to invoke Godwin's Law (although, you know, Rhenda, one of the
>corollaries is that invoking Hitler specifically to end a thread never
>works).
Does it count that Rhenda tricked Chris into a discussion of the
debating tactics of Hitler and the Nazi's? It seemed like a clear
violation of Godwin. Although if he thinks only the Nazi's use those
tactics, he needs to start paying attention.
I saw we call off this thread, and take a suggestions of Emily's to
discuss the number e.
Will "e is the loneliest number" Wheeler
Penn State University If my *dog* acted that way, I'd
wj...@psuvm.psu.edu discipline it.
whe...@po.aers.psu.edu --Justin Bukowski
Lee Rudolph
Will Wheeler <WJ...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I saw we call off this thread, and take a suggestions of Emily's to
>discuss the number e.
I heard that some western state was being pressured by a combination
of powerful lobbies from the timber industry and the beef rendering
business to ban detergents altogether (made by Satanists, dontchaknow?)
and go back good old-fashioned soap, manufactured from suet on a base
of natural logs.
Lee "would I lye?" Rudolph
Mike D'Angelo
Michael Heinz (mhe...@ssw.com) wrote:
: [...] if a person leaves their car keys in their car in a high crime
: neighborhood, they may not be responsible for having their car stolen,
: but they certainly are idiots.
Yep.
: Similarly, if a person deliberately choses to disregard the risks
: inherent in their behaviour, they bear some of the burden.
Nope. In fact, your second paragraph outright contradicts your first.
How can a person "not be responsible" and yet "bear some of the burden"?
[inapplicable smoking analogy previously zapped by Emily Kelly elided]
Mike "I'm absolutely certain. Similarly, I'm not quite sure" D'Angelo
JoAnne Schmitz
Chris Peek moaned:
>If you are "sick" of the discussion you can certainly aim your mouse
>clicks elsewhere.
Ah, in the heat of battle, the real lines are drawn.
I suppose you are just now realizing that this is eerily similar to
"if you don't want to get raped, don't get drunk."
JoAnne "if you can't stand the heat" Schmitz
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are emergency contraception pills that you can take
after you have had unprotected sex. They work up to three
days after intercourse. You don't have to wait to be sure
you're pregnant and then have an abortion.
For more information you can call 1-800-584-9911. Or check
the web site http://opr.princeton.edu/ec/ec.html.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Marker
Andras Kovacs <Andras...@vic.sanctuary.com> wrote:
>jwma...@on-ramp.net (Dorothy Marker) wrote:
>>"Charles Wm. Dimmick" <dim...@ccsu.ctstateu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Rodgers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yet the argument that intoxicated == raped says that even if the
>>>> woman, intoxicated, consents or even initiates sex (posibly with an
>>>> intoxicated man), she was raped.
>>>> Being intoxicated does not render one incapable of making decisions --
>>>> If both the man and the women were
>>>> drinking,m and both consent to sex, they both raped one another?
>>>>
>>
>>>I'm reminded of a case in Clarksville, Tennessee (or Fort Campbell, KY,
>>>which is really the same place, look it up), in 1971 (poss. spring 1972),
>>>in which a charge of rape was brought against a soldier at Fort Campbell,
>>>and finally thrown out because of conflicting evidence. Seems that two
>>>men, both soldiers, had taken two women out on a drinking spree. Somewhere
>>>during the night, according to both men and both women, one of the
>>>soldiers had sex with one of the women. All four of them clearly remember
>>>this taking place, but none of the four could remember who had sex with
>>>whom, each thinking that they had witnessed the event rather than
>>>participating in it. They also were unclear as to whether or not both
>>>parties were willing participants.
>>
>> Who brought up the rape charges when neither of the women thought they
>>had sex? The victim has to press charges, the state cannot. Since
>>both women thought they had just watched, neither of them could press
>>charges.
>Um, not exactly. The State files the charges in the name of the People; the 'Victim'
>is 'only' a prosecution witness. Of course, if the victim is unwilling to testify,
>the prosectution is setting itself up for a lost case...
Not in rape cases, there has to be a complaintant in rape, assault,
theft, fraud, ect. But how would the State know that anything took
place if no one told the police? Since nobody thought that they had
sex that night, nobody would bring it to the attention of the state.
The same is true of embezzlement, if the company doesn't want to
inform the authorities then the thief is not prosecuted.
Dorothy Marker
>Andras
>----
Chris Peek
mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
>Says Chris Peek:
Sigh...... On very well, since you insist on providing such a virtuous
example of "trimming quotes" I'll go along and save a few endangered
bits and bytes.
<snip>
>Let's translate the gender politics into racial politics and see how the
>conclusions sit with Chris. Would he argue that blacks who move into
>"good" (read white) neighborhoods should accept that they are
>"responsible to themselves" for bricks through their windows? For their
>children getting beaten up on the way to school? That black youths who
>walk in all-white neighborhoods and are attacked should accept that they
>have a recognized duty as a member of society not to pursue
>irresponsible, potentially self harming behaviors?
>Funny how it looks a lot uglier when it's black/white rather than
>female/male, isn't it?
_Both_ rape and discrimination are _unfunny_ and extraordinarily
disgusting aspects of human behavior and I would contend that both do
pretty well at pegging the ugly meter.
I think I understand the point you are trying to make but you are
really taking about apples and oranges. "Being" an African American is
typically not a behavioral decision that an individual has any degree
of free will or latitude to decide to "be" or "not be" and it is
certainly not an aspect of personal existence that an individual
could even vaguely be held responsible for although some hidebound
racists struggle mightily do so.
An individual's personal decision to exercise their behavior option to
become stoned to the point of "oblivion" is not even remotely
analogous to your above example except to the extent that they are
both examples of individuals being subject to mentally twisted
predators that will use any pretext or leverage they can gain to harm
others and advance themselves.
In the case of an African American family moving into a predominately
white neighborhood I would admire their fortitude and resolution to be
unbowed in the face of potential discrimination and their demand to be
accepted as fully vested members of society.
In the case of a man or woman lying unconscious in a puddle of drool
on the bathroom floor of a biker bar after they have finished their
20th shooter, after i have helped him or her to their feet and called
a taxi to take them home, I might wonder how a person could exercise
such foolish and irresponsible judgement in such a dangerous
circumstance.
Both situations have inherent dangers. The first is _necessarily_ and
courageously dangerous the second is stupidly and _unnecessarily_
dangerous. Both situations involve "responsibility" for behavioral
choices. The first has noble and meaningful goal that makes the
"responsibility" for taking on the risk a decision to be admired. The
second is abjectly stupid, irresponsible and a decision to be
discouraged unless "gettin' stupid" is now enshrined in the pantheon
of a human beings highest goals and aspirations.
Hmmnnn... this quote stays;
>As a woman, I am constantly told of the dangers of moving about the world
>like a free adult. I should not be out alone after dark, even in the
>best neighborhoods in town. I should be on guard against intruders in
>hotels as well as at home. I should minimise my risk by not walking
>alone in the evening, by staying home or having someone (male) accompany
>me.
<snip> goes
Stays
>Do you have any idea what it's like to be warned all the time
>about the possiblity of rape and yet to be legally defined as not
>rapable? As legally disqualified from making any choice about who you go
>to bed with?
Should cut but can't resist seeing tsk tsk spelled out.
>I tried to address this with Chris in an earlier post, and got a fatherly
>tsk tsk response that addressed me as if I were in my late teens and
>Really A Bit Wild. Not quite it, Chris. I'm fifty, a professional, I
>live in a relatively safe neighbourhood in a very safe city.
You're very fortunate! Not all urban dwellers are similarly blessed.
Very important.. main point ...stays....
>All I want is the freedom to go about my business in the same way as a man my age
>could and would.
I admire your decision to go so boldy forth, as you elaborated on in
your previous post (quoted below) with respect to this issue.
>>" I do go out and walk alone at night. I walk home alone after the
>>theatre or a concert - don't see why I should wait for ever for a bus or pay
>>for a taxi. I live alone and don't have Mace or guns to defend
>>myself. If I'm out and about and I feel like having a drink, I'll
>>go to a bar. And I still go the park despite the incidents of
>>assault, because it's a beautiful place to be, a touch of the countryside
>> in the city. Yes, I take a risk in doing all these things. Yes, sometimes I feel some fear.
>> But I'm damned if I'm going to be forced to live in a sort of purdah because
>>(some) men are a threat to me.
Second main point -stays
> But it makes me even more bloody angry if
>>someone comes along and tells me I have a measure of responsibility if I am
>>assaulted because I make choices that are not worth a second thought to men
>>in the same situation. I don't have any culpability or responsibility if I am assaulted.
>>All I have done is insist on living my life as if I am not a potential victim, insist I have
>>the right not to constrict my choices because I am a woman."
If this is a sincere desire to be free from any specific sexist laws
or restrictions I've got great news for you! Throw off your shackles
Madeleine and stop that tunnel you've been digging. The jail door is
open! You _have_ that freedom. There is no law or statute on the
books in the US (that I 'm aware of) that constrains your general
freedom of movement vis a vis a mans.
If this a sincere desire for the world to be a safer place i think we
all share that goal. Until such a satisfactory state of grace is
reached, however, the world remains a dangerous place for both women
_and men_. If I was a fifty year old MAN there are _LOTS_ of places
I would be hesitant to go and situations it would be prudent to
exercise caution in. I keep wondering where in the world you get the
odd notion that _men_ are some privileged class that have the world by
the tail with respect to not being subject to fear of robbery,
assault, violence etc. If you would take a moment to peruse any major
urban newspaper you might notice that a significant number of the
crimes of violence listed (robbery, assault etc) are against _men_.
There are few if any _men_ I know (regardless of physical size) that
would insist on taking your "absolutely no constriction of choices"
attitude toward traversing the modern cityscape.
If on the other hand (hmmnn... need three hands for this example) this
is simply the freedom to do any potentially dangerous thing you want
and be completely free of any attendant responsibility for the
consequences of your behavior _because_ there is the odd chance that
a MAN _might_ be able to get away with it in similar circumstances. If
_that's_ the case, (which it seems to be) short of your making a
decision to pack some serious heat Madeleine that's really a question
that's left to the predator's decision to predate you (or not) based
on their criteria for predation regardless of how anybody (including
you or I) feels about the lack of fairness or sexual bias inherent in
that decision.
> Not some idiot complacently telling me I have the moral
>responsibility to live in purdah because to do otherwise is "asking for
>trouble". Do you know how long I've listened to that crap, how hard
>people have tried to control women with it? It is precisely the argument
>that puts women in chadors - their faces and hair are such glowing
>temptations to male lust that they must be covered.
>See the slippery slope you're on?
I live on a slippery slope Madeleine. The rent's cheap.
>Madeleine "and no, this doesn't belong on afu, but it's still an
>important discussion" Page
>--
As a final point I _do_ wonder about one thing. This whole thread
took off when I dared to aver that getting "oblivious" had some
serious personal safety implications and that a person had some degree
of "responsibility" for keeping themselves out of harm's way by not
getting "oblivious". The more cogent disagreeing responses have
ranged from :
1: No matter how stupid and potentially endangering (to themselves) a
person's behavior is, there is no attendant responsibility issue
( for their own safety) of any sort whatsoever involved because they
( in the oblivious state) did not specifically "consent' to the acts
of harm performed on them as a result of a predator taking advantage
of their oblivious state.
2: Regardless of the rational merit (or lack thereof) of the point of
view that people have some sort of responsibility (to themselves) for
not doing abjectly stupid, self endangering things... even a cursory
examination of the issue of "responsibility" in the context of
robbery, rape, assault etc. is fraught with definitional, emotional
and political overtones that could potentially impact how victims will
be viewed and treated by society so it is best not to even consider
the point.
3: A person's decision to become "oblivious" is strictly a decision
to "become oblivious" and is divorced from any responsibility for
placing themselves in a dangerous situation in that a predators
decision to harm is also a strictly personal one regardless of
anything a person might do that makes them a desirable target of the
predator and the predators subsequent decision to harm them.
4: Well what about other people who engage in dangerous non-oblivious
behavior. Are they also "responsible" for any harm that befalls them
no matter how noble ther goals? .. and furthermore I am offended to
death by the thought that I should constrict _my_ behavior in any
way simply because of the potential danger in a situation if a man is
not held to the precisely same standard _regardless_ of the
potentially differential real world risk levels involved.
Well .. each has something to say. Two arguments were logically and
common sensically insupportable from the outset and two took more
consideration (yours and Angus's) to respond to. I suppose my main
problem in accepting any of these various points of view was that in
the end, even with truly serious consideration, they really just
don't seem to make _any kind_ of logical sense.
I wondered _how in the world_ can a presumably rational person hold
the view that a person (man or woman) who is a reasonably
intelligent social actor in the _real world_ with all it's attendant
dangers _not_ , be to some degree cognizant about and responsible for,
(if only to themselves) their own personal safety by placing
themselves in harm's way via getting stoned to the point of
unconsciousness?
And then I finally realized. It's _not_ a logical issue, it doesn't
_have_ to make sense. Which is what I think Angus was ultimately
referring to. The issue of "victims" (and most especially victims of
rape) is a heavily emotionally loaded one and it is (understandably)
anathema to many who work with and care for victims to assign any kind
of tag like "responsibility" within shouting distance of a victim of
such a terrible and hurtful crime and logical contortions of all sorts
will be entertained towards this end.
I feel the anguish and anger that some respondents have expressed and
while I have tried to make my "endangerment" examples gender neutral
so that they might be more objectively considered the responses I
receive center almost exclusively around the issue of rape.
So I wondered .. how would it feel to be raped if I drank myself into
unconsciousness?
There I am... groggy, bloody and torn, possibly beaten. My attacker
is either gone or possibly guffawing in the corner with some of his
cronies while they tuck their shirttails in. I'm alone in some bar,
alleyway or apartment. I might have AIDS now or be pregnant for all I
know. I have no humanity to my attackers. I am merely a convenient
vagina to be used and despised for my helplessness. A choked rage
wells within me. I want to kill them and make them suffer as they have
made me suffer but mostly I just want to get out of here alive. Who
will I tell who will listen? Where can I go?
And I am sure this description is just the merest whiff of the real
terror and rage involved in the real life situation.
Hmmnnn.... not a particularly desirable situation for _any_ human to
find themselves in regardless of whatever foolish behavior choices
one may engage in and regardless of how irrationally self endangering
that behavior might be. Angus was right about his main point. This
is not an issue that is subject to logical discourse about
"responsibility" issues. And given the responses received to date is
not an issue that reasoned debate about rational behavior choices is
going to achieve anything with it's. it's really just too painful.
But it _was_ worth discussing.... Thanks for your time.
Russ Arcuri
> mqd...@is2.nyu.edu (Mike D'Angelo) wrote:
>
> >I'm now imagining a scenario in which a large man walks right into me on
> >the street. "Watch it!" I say, annoyed. The man pulls out a gun and
> >shoots me in the chest, badly wounding me. Chris Peek, wandering by,
> >witnesses the incident, heroically tackles my assailant, and holds him
> >until the police arrive to put the cuffs on him. He then comes to me, as
> >I lie bleeding on the sidewalk, and says sadly, "What were you thinking,
> >mouthing off to a big guy like that?"
>
> Mike, the problem with this example is that it doesn't compare - you
> had no reasonable cause to think that encounter with that man would be
> violent. So to, with muggings, carjackings, etc.
Is it so to with rape as well? In the context of this discussion, are you
saying that women have reasonable cause to assume that all men are likely
rapists if only the woman gets drunk? Again, the responsibility for rape
is unfairly being shifted to the woman, on the assumption that men are
slobbering idiots who are *likely* to rape an incapacitated woman. Speak
for yourself; you certainly don't speak well for your gender.
Russ "had been trying to stay away from this discussion" Arcuri
Will Wheeler
In article <4mv2m2$3...@shore4.intercom.net>, cp...@shore.intercom.net (Chris
Peek) says:
>mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
><snip>
>>Let's translate the gender politics into racial politics and see how the
>>conclusions sit with Chris. Would he argue that blacks who move into
>>"good" (read white) neighborhoods should accept that they are
>>"responsible to themselves" for bricks through their windows? For their
[...]
>>Funny how it looks a lot uglier when it's black/white rather than
>>female/male, isn't it?
>_Both_ rape and discrimination are _unfunny_ and extraordinarily
>disgusting aspects of human behavior and I would contend that both do
>pretty well at pegging the ugly meter.
>I think I understand the point you are trying to make but you are
>really taking about apples and oranges. "Being" an African American is
>typically not a behavioral decision that an individual has any degree
>of free will or latitude to decide to "be" or "not be" and it is
>certainly not an aspect of personal existence that an individual
>could even vaguely be held responsible for although some hidebound
>racists struggle mightily do so.
>An individual's personal decision to exercise their behavior option to
>become stoned to the point of "oblivion" is not even remotely
>analogous to your above example except to the extent that they are
[...]
I disagree with your contention that you understand the point that Maddy
is trying to make. She is not arguing that getting blind drunk is
analagous to being black, but that being a woman is analagous to being
black. Neither are behavioral decisions.
If a black man decides to a give his friend (a white woman) a ride in
Palm Beach, is he responsible if he gets pulled over by the police?
[TWIAVBP: Palm Beach is a very rich, white community in the US and has
a history of extremely unenlightened race relations]
If so, how is this situation different from a woman who gets date raped
after she drinks too much?
Will Wheeler
Penn State University "God, I need to get a life."
wj...@psuvm.psu.edu --Paul Tomblin
whe...@po.aers.psu.edu
Fred J. Drinkwater
Emily Kelly (eke...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: Michael Heinz <mhe...@ssw.com> wrote:
: >Consider this final example: I smoke 2 packs a day. I read all the
: >little warning labels, I listen to Dr. Koop, tell myself I should
: >quit, but I never do. I get lung cancer. Whose fault is it?
: Nope, you've over-oversimplified and it doesn't wash. Lung cancer
: can't be held accountable for giving itself to you, but a rapist,
: murderer, or robber is always responsible for their act of violation,
: no matter if the victim made it easier.
: To dwell on What The Victim Ought To Have Done Better is necessarily to
: divert attention away from the violation, which is the real problem.
: >Mike "Will pontificate for food." Heinz
: Emily "why bother, it's probably carcinogenic, too" Kelly
: --
(I must be absolutely nuts to venture into this one, but...)
Let's try some incidents on for size:
1. I booze up, get in my car, and run into a cliff. Did I do anything
stupid? Sure. Also criminal, no doubt.
2. I booze up in a city bar, stumble into traffic, and get smacked
by a car. Did I do anything stupid? Sure. Did the driver commit a crime?
Maybe, but probably not.
3. I booze up in a city bar, stumble into an alley, and get mugged.
Did I do anything stupid? Sure. Did the mugger commit a crime? Sure.
4. I booze up in the private company of aquaintances,
stumble into the coatroom, get molested by one of the "aquaintances".
Did I do anything stupid? Maybe, probably not. Did the molester commit
a crime? Almost certainly.
I think it's unfortunate that this discussion is centered around rape.
Emily is quite correct to say in that context,
: To dwell on What The Victim Ought To Have Done Better is necessarily to
: divert attention away from the violation, which is the real problem.
because of the shameful history of treatment of rape victims by the
police, courts, and society. Unless someone shows me good evidence that
serious voluntary intoxication by the woman is a common event in rape
cases, I'm going to continue to believe that that's a cheap red herring.
However, I must agree with the aspect of Chris's argument which implies
that in incidents 1, 2 & 3 above, I did do something stupid.
Fred "not the Pontiff, not even on TV" Drinkwater