sexual fantasies
a friend
who you are not sexually interested in, perhaps don't even like was
fantasizing about you. How would that make you feel, especially if
that fantasy involved rape?
Paul W. Francisco
An interesting question. Well, if it was just fantasy and there was no
concern of it being acted upon, I would probably feel a little flattered,
find it perhaps amusing, but I would make sure not to say anything that
might suggest that I was interested. I would not mind, though. It would
not make me avoid the person, even one-on-one.
But then you throw the rape factor into it. I assume this is the part
that you are really wondering and concerned about. In this case I would
be concerned and be on guard. When there was a chance of seeing the
person in a usual setting, I would want to have others with me. If I
felt that I could not handle it myself were I to be surprised, such as
were I to be walking home by myself, I would want a friend with me. I
have a hard time thinking of too many situations where I would feel that
I couldn't handle it on my own, though. I have good enough leverage that
I could probably overpower the other person, and am fast enough to run
and get away if that was a necessary option. If the other person is a
threat to you physically, for whatever reason (strength, size, training
such as martial arts, etc.), I would definitely be concerned about these
fantasies and make sure never to be caught alone. If there is no real
threat, I would feel flattered and good about myself and carry on with
life as normal, just not reciprocate the feelings.
--
Paul W. Francisco | And did you know desire's a terrible thing
fran...@oscar.ccm.udel.edu | The worst that I can find.
| And did you know desire's a terrible thing
| But I rely on mine.
| - The Sundays - "Can't Be Sure"
Kristen Kohlbecker
[What if? scenario]
This would make me very uncomfortable...actually, I'd be pretty scared. I've
been raped enough times to know that it's not something that appeals greatly
to me, so someone contemplating, even in fantasy, raping me, I consider great
cause for concern.
Tyger
*****************************************************************
Kristen Kathryn Kohlbecker
If you cannot have the class to be civil, then
at least have the intellect to be quiet. - Daniel Clark
*****************************************************************
a friend
>This would make me very uncomfortable...actually, I'd be pretty
>scared. I've been raped enough times to know that it's not something
>that appeals greatly to me, so someone contemplating, even in
>fantasy, raping me, I consider great cause for concern.
Yeah, I remember reading that stuff you posted a while back. Sorry to
bring it up again. Perhaps rape was a bad way to describe it. Here
is a better way.
Does the idea that someone is fantasing sex with you who is not your
SO and maybe you don't even know or like bother you in any way? In
other words, are fantasies harmful or harmless?
Tigger
I wouldn't really think much one way or the other unless I felt that
there was some chance of the individual trying to carry out his or her
fantasy. Everyone is welcome to their own thoughts, as long as they are
sane enough to sepparate fantasy from reality. If we were talking about
someone sick enough to be dangerous, then I would take whatever measures
were appropriate to protect myself. It's amazing how much a couple of
well-placed 9mm shells can teach.
| Greg Orman gr...@pomona.claremont.edu |
| If you can't stand up for something, you'll fall for anything. |
Tom Chapin
>Here's a question for y'all out there. Suppose you knew that someone
>who you are not sexually interested in, perhaps don't even like was
>fantasizing about you.
I'm sure I've fantasized many times about many someones who were not
sexually interested in me or didn't even know me. No big deal.
Turnabout is fair play.
>How would that make you feel, especially if that fantasy involved rape?
Um, is this sposed to be a trick question, one with a politically
correct answer? I suppose I would appreciate knowing whether they
knew the difference between real rape and fantasy rape. Most people
do. If so, then refer to previous question. Actually on those
occasions when it appeared to me that someone was fantasizing about
me, I felt sorrow that I was unable to return their feelings,
because I know only too well how I feel when they are unable to
return mine.
Next question... How would you feel if someone had a rape fantasy
about you...and the fantasy they had was about you raping them?
--
tom chapin att!hrccb!tjc t...@hrccb.att.com
Paul W. Francisco
>Next question... How would you feel if someone had a rape fantasy
>about you...and the fantasy they had was about you raping them?
Well, I answered the original question, so I might as well answer this
one too. This one is a little trickier, though, and I do expect to get
some flames and strange looks for this.
Well, again it wouldn't bother me too much. It is very difficult to
force someone to commit a rape against you. After all, since the rapist
is supposedly the one in control, wouldn't me 'being forced to rape someone'
actually make me be the victim of the rape? People can fanatasize about
me all they want to, as long as they don't try to force their fantasies into
reality against my wishes.
Now how would I feel if they did try to force the issue? Would I indulge
them or would I keep them away? This is where the flames may come. There
is actually at least one case where I would perhaps indulge the fantasy.
This case is where there is a lot of trust between me and the other person,
we are already in a sexual relationship, and they just want to try it out.
There would have to be an understanding that if they began to feel at all
uncomfortable with it they would tell me, and I would stop at that point.
I have nothing against a little rough stuff. It can be fun. But the 'rape'
would have to just be play, just a pretend thing done with the understanding
that it can be stopped at any time. This would, for all intents and
purposes make it not a rape, but rather just a choreographed session of
sex that included playing a little rough, with me being a little more
'aggressive'. By the time it gets acceptable to me to go through with it,
the fear would be taken out, and it would be more an acting job like in a
movie. Would this qualify any longer as rape? I don't think so. More
like going through the motions.
Now then, if it was someone with whom there wasn't an extreme amount of
trust I wouldn't do it. If it was someone who was hoping that I might
jump out of the shadows as they were walking home alone in the dark, there
is no way in hell I would do it. If they felt they couldn't stop it at
any point along the way I wouldn't do it.
There is no way I would ever commit anything that could be considered a
true rape, where I was forcing them to do something they didn't want to do.
I hope people understand the difference. The situation where I would do
it is one where it is more a rougher session of sex and it is just a matter
of semantics as to whether or not it is a rape. I would think of it more
as rape-like, but not rape. How they phrase it is up to them.
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>It's amazing how much a couple of well-placed 9mm shells can teach.
It's amazing how much a couple of kind words and a touch can teach.
If I really knew of someone who wanted to hurt me for no reason I
could think of I would ask them why. It might be that they didn't
realize that what they were planning would hurt me. It might be
that I had done something to hurt them that I'd been unaware of.
It might be that they didn't want to hurt me at all and that I'd
been completely wrong....
Some folks look for answers,
others look for fights.
Kristen Kohlbecker
acs...@alembic.acs.com (a friend) writes:
>
>Does the idea that someone is fantasing sex with you who is not your
>SO and maybe you don't even know or like bother you in any way? In
>other words, are fantasies harmful or harmless?
I agree, that way of putting it is better...:) I think fantasies are
harmless as long as they stay fantasies without dancing over the line to
obsession. Obsessions can be dangerous, and I try to avoid obsessive people.
If someone was merely fantasising about sex with me, that might bother me a
little bit, but not much.
Tigger
> In article <1991Feb17...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>It's amazing how much a couple of well-placed 9mm shells can teach.
>
> It's amazing how much a couple of kind words and a touch can teach.
True. And it would be nice to think that reasonable discussion such as
you suggest could head off all violence in this world. Unfortunately,
that just ain't the case. Once one has been physically attacked, it is
too late for kind words. And rape (which was the subject at hand) is
undoubtedly a physical attack.
> Some folks look for answers,
> others look for fights.
There is a big difference between looking for a fight and defending oneself.
Daniel Mocsny
By "involved rape", what do you mean? That they are fantasizing about
raping me? Or that they fantasize I will rape them? Or that some sort
of rape is going on concurrently during whatever fantasy they are
having?
If they are fantasizing about raping me, thank god they are only
fantasizing. After all, I wouldn't want to have to incapacitate
anybody. Here's hoping the fantasizer is skilled at masturbating;
masturbatory difficulties are very common among people who
actually rape. I would get very alarmed to discover that person
who was masturbatorially-dysfunctional was fantasizing about raping
me.
If they want to fantasize about me raping them, they can fantasize
all they want and I won't do it. If they want to fantasize about
me in connection with a rape of some sort going on somewhere, I
will think that is strange, but I don't tell people what to think,
only how I do or don't like them to behave toward me.
--
Dan Mocsny
Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
Daniel Mocsny
>Yeah, I remember reading that stuff you posted a while back. Sorry to
>bring it up again. Perhaps rape was a bad way to describe it. Here
>is a better way.
>
>Does the idea that someone is fantasing sex with you who is not your
>SO and maybe you don't even know or like bother you in any way? In
>other words, are fantasies harmful or harmless?
Anything can be harmful if taken to some extreme. For example, if a
person becomes obsessed with their fantasy to the point where it
debilitates them, or leads them to harmful behavior, then it is not
healthy. However, I suspect that millions of people fantasize about
sex every day with people who do not return the favor. (For example,
do you suppose that all those women who pose for the "Entertainment
for Men" magazines would get excited about the 4 million men who
are going to get hard-ons by looking at their pictures?) The world
appears to keep rotating despite the overwhelming lop-sidedness
in what each sex tends to finds attractive about the other.
In any case, sex therapists commonly *prescribe* sexual fantasy as
another tool to help people overcome various dysfunctions.
Fantasy is a normal component of sexuality for most people. Many
people fantasize even while having partner sex, and ability to
fantasize is often closely related to the ability to have orgasms,
or even get in the mood for sex. Most people find various pornographic
items to be useful for stimulating a healthy fantasy life. For
heterosexual men, these materials usually focus on the ideal female
form, the girlie magazine, because this is what tends to turn on
most men. For heterosexual women, these materials usually focus on
the ideal setting and circumstances for sex and romance with some
ideal man: rich, powerful, intriguing, and physically attractive.
Women's pornography (romance novels) actually outsells men's
pornography (girlie magazines). And women who read a lot of their
pornography tend to be much better in bed, not to mention easier to
find oneself there with.
You do need a person's permission to have sex with them. You do not
need a person's permission to fantasize about having sex with them.
However, if the person is not interested in your fantasy, do keep
it to yourself. Letting them know about it is imposing your unwelcome
sexual advance on them. And that is a Bozo no-no.
Michael Raymond Feely
>Does the idea that someone is fantasing sex with you who is not your
>SO and maybe you don't even know or like bother you in any way? In
>other words, are fantasies harmful or harmless?
Depends on a number of things - in your first version of the question,
you specifically mention rape fantasies, which does tend to cast things
in a different light. I would not be averse to having someone fantasize
about me. I don't particularly care if someone fantasizes about rape or
violence. But when someone begins to fantasize about rape or violence
with a single, particular individual as the star in those fantasies,
that seems to me to indicate not healthy fantasy, but a rather less
healthy obsession with one person in particular. (No, I don't define
rape fantasies, in general to be unhealthy. Rape in reality is
oppressive, vile and should be swiftly punished, however.) Of course
this also depends on how well equipped the fantasizer is to deal with
his or her own fantasies - some people can entertain such a fantasy
without it ever affecting their dealings with the person who is the
object of the fantasy, or anyone else. Others would become obsessive and
potentially dangerous.
Fantasies, IMHO, are not harmful in themselves. How you choose to deal
with them or express them is what gives them their power - either to do
harm, or to do good.
=======------======------======------
Michael - Protector of the Imperium, Suzerain of Askalon etc...
"That is the beginning of knowledge - The discovery of something we
do not understand" -Leto Atreides II
Of course they're my opinions, even if half of 'em are stolen.
Michael Feely, PO Box 4602, 5125 Margaret Morrison, Pittsburgh PA 15213
Kristen Kohlbecker
>In article <1991Feb17...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>It's amazing how much a couple of well-placed 9mm shells can teach.
>
> It's amazing how much a couple of kind words and a touch can teach.
>
But Lou, what about if youre being attacked by some big burly person that has
invaded your hom,e, or for that matter, anyone that invades your home? Kind
words don't mean diddlyshit to someone like that. If someone invades my home I
would cheerfully send them on to the afterlife, and I wouldn't worry over
"Well maybe I should have reached out to him.." or something along those
lines. Talk is cheap and it certainly can't stop a knife slash or bullets, so
if it comes down to him or me, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that
the dear departed was him.
>
> Some folks look for answers,
> others look for fights.
This isn't looking for a fight, Wratty, it's protecting oneself because you
had reason to fear for your life. Or do you not see a difference?
Cedric Chin
I'd say be concerned about the person having them, not what he/she is thinking.
In article <910217025...@apple.com>, acs...@alembic.acs.com (a friend) writes:
|> In article <75...@crash.cts.com> Kristen Kohlbecker writes:
|> >This would make me very uncomfortable...actually, I'd be pretty
|> >scared. I've been raped enough times to know that it's not something
|> >that appeals greatly to me, so someone contemplating, even in
|> >fantasy, raping me, I consider great cause for concern.
|>
|> Yeah, I remember reading that stuff you posted a while back. Sorry to
|> bring it up again. Perhaps rape was a bad way to describe it. Here
|> is a better way.
|>
|> Does the idea that someone is fantasing sex with you who is not your
|> SO and maybe you don't even know or like bother you in any way? In
|> other words, are fantasies harmful or harmless?
Where's my !@#$ sig?
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>Once one has been physically attacked, it is too late for kind words.
The question was "suppose someone was _thinking_ about hurting you".
"Some folks trust to reason,
others trust to might."
Brett W Johnson
>>>It's amazing how much a couple of well-placed 9mm shells can teach.
>>
>> It's amazing how much a couple of kind words and a touch can teach.
>>
>
Kristen, Kristen, Kristen - get with the program...
A 3 pound hammer against the temple can teach one quite a bit...
Ramming your fingertips into his eyes can also be educational...
Crushing his larnyx with your knuckles might also prove instructive...
Then there is the tautological: grab testicles, squeeze, twist, *and*
rip...
Yes it is indeed *amazing* what a touch can teach...
Overall, though I would recommend 9mm jacketed hollowpoints. Aim
initially for center of mass (bellybutton) and walk your rounds up
his body until he falls or his head explodes. Never *expect* one
round to be enough...
--
Brett W. Johnson
---
These opinions are mine and mine alone...
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>lines. Talk is cheap and it certainly can't stop a knife slash or bullets, so
>if it comes down to him or me, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that
>the dear departed was him.
Well, *disregarding the fact that the original question dealt with
a person thinking about causing harm and not actually acting* :-), *I* would
not willingly cause harm even to an attacker. It is possible to divert most
attacks so that no harm is caused to anyone, and all but the most determined
attacker can be stopped without causing a death.
> This isn't looking for a fight, Wratty, it's protecting oneself because you
>had reason to fear for your life. Or do you not see a difference?
I see no difference between your deliberately causing harm to an
attacker and his (her!) deliberately causing harm to you. Most especially
if the attack is only hypothetical... If I thought you might hurt me am I
justified in a pre-emptive strike? Bah.
Aahzmandius
Yes, but the point is that there is some justification for worrying
that thoughts may turn to actions.
--
--- Aahz (aka Dan Bernstein)
New Address!! @netcom.com (or netcom!aa...@apple.com)
"Writing for television is a debilitating exercise. How can you
inspire an audience to their best when every fourteen minutes someone
interrupts to tell them that they're unfit to live with? The ultimate
purpose of commercial television is to convince the viewer that he
smells bad." --- SS
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>I meant that I would prepare to defend myself in case of an attack.
>Is that really unreasonable?
Not unreasonable but un*optimal*. Better to prevent an attack from
occuring than to defend against it. And no, I don't mean kill the other
guy first...
wr
Tigger
> In article <1991Feb17...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>Once one has been physically attacked, it is too late for kind words.
>
> The question was "suppose someone was _thinking_ about hurting you".
And my answer was "If I think they are crazy enough to carry fantasy into
reality, I will take appropriate measures to defend myself." I suppose
some might take that as "Shoot him before he has a chance to hurt you,"
but that's not what was intended. I meant that I would prepare to defend
myself in case of an attack. Is that really unreasonable?
| Greg Orman gr...@pomona.claremont.edu |
Tigger
>
> I see no difference between your deliberately causing harm to an
> attacker and his (her!) deliberately causing harm to you. Most especially
> if the attack is only hypothetical... If I thought you might hurt me am I
> justified in a pre-emptive strike? Bah.
I've been following this thread from the first posting, and I don't think
I've missed any to this point. I have only one question for you. Who ever
mentioned anything about justifying a pre-emptive strike?
Tigger
>
> Overall, though I would recommend 9mm jacketed hollowpoints. Aim
> initially for center of mass (bellybutton) and walk your rounds up
> his body until he falls or his head explodes. Never *expect* one
> round to be enough...
Which is why my personal favorite sidearm is a standard military-issue
9mm Baretta pistol. If I recall correctly, the stock magazine holds
twelve rounds.
And when you're dealing with guns, remember the other two rules:
o Don't draw unless you're prepared to shoot
o Once you have finished your attacker, empty the rest of your
magazine at random into the walls in a 45 degree arc to either
side of the assailant, if you haven't already. This will help
solidify your claim of 'fear for your life.' People that scared
rarely shoot straight.
Brett W Johnson
>In article <76...@crash.cts.com> ty...@pnet01.cts.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>not willingly cause harm even to an attacker. It is possible to divert most
>attacks so that no harm is caused to anyone, and all but the most determined
>attacker can be stopped without causing a death.
A person who is not highly skilled and is fighting to divert attacks
will almost *certainly* lose against someone who is armed and trying
to do serious bodily harm. Possible, yes - probable, no.
>> This isn't looking for a fight, Wratty, it's protecting oneself because you
>>had reason to fear for your life. Or do you not see a difference?
>
> I see no difference between your deliberately causing harm to an
>attacker and his (her!) deliberately causing harm to you. Most especially
>if the attack is only hypothetical... If I thought you might hurt me am I
>justified in a pre-emptive strike? Bah.
One is self-defense and is legally and morally justifiable.
Hypothetical in what way??? If someone is pointing a gun at me or
rushing at me with a knife, I can and will justifiable assume that
they intend to do me serious bodily harm. I would feel no qualms
about killing someone in these circumstances.
>
> "Some folks trust to reason,
> others trust to might"
ro...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
For your sake,I hope you never encounter a situation.There are
alot of sick bastards out there......you can trust your life to
trying to talk;as for myself,my size helps avoid most situations (6'4"
and about 205 lbs) but if and when one comes up,I'd have no second thoughts
about shooting,stabbing or just using martial arts to defend myself.
And if you see no difference in my being attacked and defending myself,you
are as bad as the sick @#cks that would attack me.If they are just thinking
of attacking then there is no harm in thinking of defending either,eh?
Net.slave,net.property of Kristen Kohlbecker......supreme mistress and
member of the superior sex
Lou Marco (WRAT)
Someone asked "what would you do if you knew someone was fantasizing
about hurting you?", and several people replied that they'd prepare to kill
them, messily. We got several short dissertations on what to aim for, the best
load, &c. This tells me that people are eager for violence.
wr
"Thought I heard a young man moan this mornin',
thought I heard I young man moan today..."
Tigger
> In article <1991Feb19...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>> Who ever mentioned anything about justifying a pre-emptive strike?
>
> Someone asked "what would you do if you knew someone was fantasizing
> about hurting you?", and several people replied that they'd prepare to kill
> them, messily. We got several short dissertations on what to aim for, the best
> load, &c. This tells me that people are eager for violence.
That may be true. Those with a sociological bent might care to debate
whether this is a result of the "horribly violent" cartoons we all watched
as kids. But no one ever said "Do unto others before they do unto you."
There's a big difference between those who occasionally think about the
nasty things they would do to someone who attacked them, and those who
go up to the top of a clock tower and start blowing people away because
one of them might hurt them someday.
And this comes back to the original question. Then it was rape, now it
is grave bodily injury/death. But the essence of the question is the same.
Are thoughts of violence enough in and of themselves for concern? I will
answer, as I did originally, that it depends upon the sanity of the person
having the thoughts.
Peter H. Hellmonds
(begin quote)
[
A 3 pound hammer against the temple can teach one quite a bit...
Ramming your fingertips into his eyes can also be educational...
Crushing his larnyx with your knuckles might also prove instructive...
Then there is the tautological: grab testicles, squeeze, twist, *and*
rip...
Yes it is indeed *amazing* what a touch can teach...
Overall, though I would recommend 9mm jacketed hollowpoints. Aim
initially for center of mass (bellybutton) and walk your rounds up
his body until he falls or his head explodes. Never *expect* one
round to be enough...
(end quote)
You are sick, man. Get some professional help. If you think your posting
has any relevance to soc.singles, please explain. I don't get your sense
of humor. It gives me the creeps.
Peter
Brett W Johnson
>I write:
>A 3 pound hammer against the temple can teach one quite a bit...
>
>You are sick, man. Get some professional help. If you think your posting
>has any relevance to soc.singles, please explain. I don't get your sense
>of humor. It gives me the creeps.
Taken out of context, I guess it might seem a little scary...
The discussion revolved around the use of deadly force if attacked.
Which came about from discussing how you would feel if someone was
*thinking* about raping/killing/sexually fantasizing about you.
One person implied that "A few kind words and a friendly touch" might
be enough. Which to a person on the edge might be enough... To a
person over the edge, it is err, umm, "silly".
As to my sick sense of humor, I wasn't joking. I don't believe in
fighting. I would rather talk my way out of a situation or run away
than "get physical". But, if that is the only solution I will seek
to kill, maim, or cripple my assailant as quickly as possible.
--
Brett W. Johnson
---
Carole Ashmore
> a friend writes:
> Next question... How would you feel if someone had a rape fantasy
> about you...and the fantasy they had was about you raping them?
I'd love it. Men with imagination are so difficult to find.
Carole Ashmore
Brett W Johnson
>
>And this comes back to the original question. Then it was rape, now it
>is grave bodily injury/death. But the essence of the question is the same.
>Are thoughts of violence enough in and of themselves for concern? I will
>answer, as I did originally, that it depends upon the sanity of the person
>having the thoughts.
Sounds reasonable to me... I have had violent thoughts on occasion, but
I have enough self-control that I would never act on them. I think
everyone has thoughts (violent or perverted or whatever) about things
that they *know* are wrong and would never do. Part of being human
is being able to control our animal impulses.
Seth Breidbart
In article <910216031...@apple.com>, acs...@alembic.acs.com
(a friend) queries:
> Here's a question for y'all out there. Suppose you knew that someone
> who you are not sexually interested in, perhaps don't even like was
> fantasizing about you. How would that make you feel, especially if
> that fantasy involved rape?
Simple. I'd fantasize about that person going to prison for 20 years.
Poetic justice.
Seth se...@fid.morgan.com
Brett W Johnson
>I write:
>>If someone is pointing a gun at me or
>>rushing at me with a knife, I can and will justifiable assume that
>>they intend to do me serious bodily harm. I would feel no qualms
>>about killing someone in these circumstances.
>
>is wrong....
Sigh... No, killing and maiming are *bad* things, but if it's a choice
between me or him I will pick him (dying) every time.
> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
>to hurt people for *any* reason?
So who died and and made ME God? I don't know... But a surgeon hurts you
when he operates on you. A dentist hurts you when he drills your tooth.
A parent hurts you when he/she spanks you as a child. There is some
concept of greater good that is operative in all these cases.
In the case of someone attacking me, I believe that they give up their
right to life if they attempt to deprive me of mine.
If I had a magic wand that I could wave and make my attacker a
harmless and productive member of society I would. But I don't.
What I can and will do is try to ensure that I am his LAST victem.
Hopefully I will survive the experience, but if I don't I hope to
go down with my teeth locked in his jugular.
In most ways I am an extremely nice person, but threaten me or that
which I love and I am utterly ruthless.
One of the reasons that criminals get away with as much as they
do is that "turn the other cheek attitude".
The sister of a friend of mine in high school was brutally raped and
murdered. An ex-SO was molested as a child. Another friend was
raped. I would cheerfully kill each and every one of the people
who did those things and anything similar.
Is killing inherently wrong? I do not know, again I am not God.
Go directly to Hell, do not pass St Peter, do not collect Halo.
Tigger
>
> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
> to hurt people for *any* reason?
That, I suppose, is the essense of the pacifist or 'turn the other cheek'
opinion. I of course cannot be sure, but I suspect that many if not most
people would disagree with you. Most people would not allow someone to do
bodily harm to them if they could prevent it. Most people would probably
consider harming that other person to be justified in the name of self
defense.
ro...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
> In article <1991Feb19...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>> Who ever mentioned anything about justifying a pre-emptive strike?
>
> Someone asked "what would you do if you knew someone was fantasizing
> about hurting you?", and several people replied that they'd prepare to kill
> them, messily. We got several short dissertations on what to aim for, the best
> load, &c. This tells me that people are eager for violence.
Lou,
If your house/apartment catches fire,use an 'A' extinguisher for a
paper/wood/cloth fire,a 'B' for flammable liqids, 'C' for electrical.
Aim for the base of an 'A' fire etc. etc. etc.
Does this mean I am eager for my house to catch fire ??
Net.slave,net.property of Kristen Kohlbecker.......supreme mistress and
member of the superior sex.
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>If someone is pointing a gun at me or
>rushing at me with a knife, I can and will justifiable assume that
>they intend to do me serious bodily harm. I would feel no qualms
>about killing someone in these circumstances.
So, then, killing and maiming isn't wrong, just doing it to _you_
is wrong....
I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
to hurt people for *any* reason?
wr
Kenn Barry
> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
>to hurt people for *any* reason?
No.
Kayembee
Lou Marco (WRAT)
> Lou,
Who's "lou" ??
>If your house/apartment catches fire,use an 'A' extinguisher for a
>[...] Does this mean I am eager for my house to catch fire ??
To _prevent_ your house catching fire, #include <smokeyDbear.h>
If all you worry about is how to stop fires that have already started
I'd wonder if you didn't *like* 'em to start...
Like all those people who *always* have bad relationships: I wonder
that they don't want 'em that way <- attempt to return to group's charter :-)
wr
Denise Neapolitan
>In article <1991Feb20...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>Are thoughts of violence enough in and of themselves for concern? I will
>Sounds reasonable to me... I have had violent thoughts on occasion, but
>I have enough self-control that I would never act on them. I think
>everyone has thoughts (violent or perverted or whatever) about things
>that they *know* are wrong and would never do.
I agree. I have a persistent fantasy about lining up all the people who
have ever caused me grief and making them kneel in front of me whilst
I decide which of them I'm going to shoot in the head. OF COURSE I
WOULD NEVER DO THIS IN A MILLION BILLION YEARS. But I find it a very
satisfying way of releasing pent-up aggression.
--
Denise M. Neapolitan | University of Edinburgh
UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!cogsci!denise | Centre for Cognitive Science
ARPA: denise%cogsci....@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk| 2 Buccleuch Place
JANET: den...@uk.ac.ed.cogsci | Edinburgh EH8 9LW Scotland
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>One of the reasons that criminals get away with as much as they
>do is that "turn the other cheek attitude".
Criminals "get away" with as much as they do because the "punishment"
approach to crime never worked. If evildoers were made to atone for their
crimes they might both realize the effects of their actions and help rebuild
some of what they've destroyed. This is the way many Muslim countries work,
and if I'm not mistaken was the approach taken in many classical Eastern
lands, such as feudal Japan.
>Is killing inherently wrong? I do not know, again I am not God.
But you *are* god. As...repulsive... as the idea might be, even the
person who raped your friend was a manifestation of the universal (had
Buddha-nature??).
>Go directly to Hell, do not pass St Peter, do not collect Halo.
Well, actually, I'm going to be reincarnated as an otter, and live
in Yosemite National Park and catch trouts with my teeth.
"Just like Jack the Ripper, just like Frankenstein,
break your chains, and count your change, and try
to walk the line..."
Tigger
> In article <1991Feb22.1...@athena.mit.edu> bjoh...@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes:
>>One of the reasons that criminals get away with as much as they
>>do is that "turn the other cheek attitude".
>
> Criminals "get away" with as much as they do because the "punishment"
> approach to crime never worked.
Actually, it was my impression that those whose business it is to know
consider the recent (historically speaking) experimentation with turning
'jails' into 'correctional institutions' to be a complete failure. It
seems that no matter what we do to try to 'correct' the attitudes and
behavior of convicted criminals, such as teach them job skills with which
they might be able to support themselves once they get out, most of them
turn right around and commit new crimes. These 'correctional' programs
therefore seem to be a pretty inefficient way to spend our tax dollars.
| Greg Orman gr...@pomona.claremont.edu |
| Fall not in love, for it will stick to your face. |
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>isn't it wrong to hurt people for *any* reason?
> No.
What reasons are good reasons to hurt people for?
wr
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>Most people would not allow someone to do bodily harm to them if they could
>prevent it. Most people would probably consider harming that other person
>to be justified in the name of self defense.
(this will return to singles topics in a moment :-)
Not allowing harm to come to yourself does not imply the necessity
of harming others. Causing harm is wrong. Using another's actions to justify
your own is giving that other control over your self. You have failed to
break the cycle of violence and have become what you profess to hate.
This phenomena is evidenced in relationships, also. (See, I told
you I re-focus this... :-) Your partner "cheats" on you so you feel justified
in cheating on your partner. Women use men so men feel it's OK to use women,
and so on ad infinitum. Break the cycle and do not allow others to control
your own actions.
the wharf rat
Tigger
>
> Not allowing harm to come to yourself does not imply the necessity
> of harming others. Causing harm is wrong. Using another's actions to justify
> your own is giving that other control over your self. You have failed to
> break the cycle of violence and have become what you profess to hate.
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
> This phenomena is evidenced in relationships, also. (See, I told
> you I re-focus this... :-) Your partner "cheats" on you so you feel justified
> in cheating on your partner. Women use men so men feel it's OK to use women,
> and so on ad infinitum. Break the cycle and do not allow others to control
> your own actions.
This does not necessarily follow. Just because someone mugs me in a dark
alley does not mean I feel justified to go out and mug someone. I do feel
justified to defend myself. Do you really not see the difference? And
this applies equally in relationships. If my partner cheats on me, I do
not feel justified in cheating on her. In fact, at that point I _could not_
cheat on her, because she would probably not be my partner anymore. And
if we managed to work the situation out, I certainly would not go out and
follow her example that had led to the situation. As for being used, it's
the same thing again. If a woman uses me, I do not feel justified to go
out and use other women. But I do feel justified in taking whatever measures
are appropriate to prevent that woman from using me. Again, don't you see
the difference?
Daniel Mocsny
> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
>to hurt people for *any* reason?
What is your source of "right" and "wrong"? The only source I know
would be some absolute authority, say, a God.
Until God comes down from Heaven and tells us right from wrong, the
best we can do in the meantime is to think in terms of expediency,
precision, elegance, and so on.
Violence rarely represents an optimal way to improve one's lot. This
is because it involves expending a lot of energy, and expending a
lot of energy always creates a lot of side effects that are hard to
control. In every case where violence is an option, there is always
(or *was* always) at least one alternative that could have gotten
you to your goal with less energy expenditure, and thus fewer side
effects.
For example, if a freight train is speeding down a track, and you
wish to stop it, you might try placing a million-ton block of
concrete across the track in front of it. That will work.
However, if you could instead negotiate with the brakeman aboard
the train to apply the brake, you could stop the train without
making yourself quite so odious to a lot of people.
The Universe contains many powerful forces. Violence is trying to
meet these forces head-on with even more powerful forces. Unfortunately,
we can't force the Universe to play by our rules, because it is more
powerful than we are. Thus we must learn where the buttons are, whereby
we can influence the forces we can't stop head-on.
--
Dan Mocsny
Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
SESP...@ysub.ysu.edu
it is appropriate or not, if someone was going to cause me physical harm, i
would do whatever needed to be done to stop that person. No i dont believe in
voilence, but if someone insists on hurting me, i will hurt them first...
Meloney D Cregor
You misunderstand.
It is not necessarily 'wrong' to hurt someone, as this may be the lesser
of two evils. However, there may not be a 'good reason'.
The two ideas are not the same. You may unintentionally hurt somone. They may
interpret a word or an action differently than you intend. Are you responsible
for the pain you inflict? It may be necessary to hurt somone a little with
words to prevent them from being hurt more in another way. It isn't a good
reason, it is just less bad than another reason.
James Davis Nicoll
Speaking as the Devil's Advocate:
If by inflicting damage, you prevent worse damage from
occuring (see 'open heart surgery').
James Nicoll
Daniel Mocsny
>I have a persistent fantasy about lining up all the people who
>have ever caused me grief and making them kneel in front of me whilst
>I decide which of them I'm going to shoot in the head.
I suppose that men who desire to date Ms. Neapolitan are advised to
bring along kneepads.
> OF COURSE I
>WOULD NEVER DO THIS IN A MILLION BILLION YEARS. But I find it a very
>satisfying way of releasing pent-up aggression.
Actually, if they knew what they were doing, you could get an
equivalently satisfying release of pent-up aggression without even
having to shoot them.
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>What is your source of "right" and "wrong"? The only source I know
happen to them" /* this is an operative rather than formal definition*/
>Until God comes down from Heaven and tells us right from wrong, the
But *you* are god, daniel. Or are you the walrus ? Koo-koo-kachoo!
Robert Thurlow
>Or are you the walrus ? Koo-koo-kachoo!
Geshundheit!
(ya hadda hear the record for best effect :-)
Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thu...@convex.com
An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX
Lou Marco (WRAT)
Once the Buddhist nun Rising Moon came upon a shrine that had been
abadandoned and overrun by Oni devils. Using her staff she and her
companion fought the Oni devils, driving them from the shrine. Rising Moon
deliberately did not attempt to kill the Oni, and even spared one's life when
she had it at her mercy, allowing the creature to escape. Sometime later
Rising Moon was injured during a battle with an ugly bakemono in a dismal
swamp, and was rescued by this very same Oni devil. (What the Oni was doing
in the swamp is another story). Should you ever forget the virtue of mercy,
remember Rising Moon, who would not even kill an Oni devil.
Hey, ya never know when ya might find yerself in a swamp battling
Japanese ogres, eh?
W.rat
Dave Eisen
>have ever caused me grief and making them kneel in front of me whilst
>I decide which of them I'm going to shoot in the head. OF COURSE I
That's wild! I too have a fantasy about people lining up in front of me
on their knees...
--
Dave Eisen "If I wanted to be a diplomat, I would
1447 N. Shoreline Blvd. have joined the foreign service."
Mountain View, CA 94043 --- my girlfriend to her boss
(415) 967-5644 dke...@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (for now)
Daniel Mocsny
>#define wrong "doing to someone that which that someone does not wish to have\
>happen to them" /* this is an operative rather than formal definition*/
What if the person wants something to happen to them that requires
my active participation, and I refuse? Have I wronged them? (This
does not violate your definition, I think. By not doing the thing they
desire, I am doing something else to them, namely refusing them.)
For example, suppose a person has an accident and is bleeding to
death at my feet. Suppose I know how to stop the bleeding. If I fail
to "do to them that which that someone wishes to have happen to them?,
do I wrong them?
Here's another example. Suppose a person wants to have sex with me,
and I don't want to have sex with this person. If I reject this person,
then by your definition I am "doing to someone that which that someone
does not wish to have happen to them". (I.e., my rejecting them is
active.)
When two people have incompatible desires, then at least one must
"wrong" the other by your definition.
I'm not faulting your definition. It's certainly the definition everybody
I know uses. (They take the role of "someone".)
>>Until God comes down from Heaven and tells us right from wrong, the
>
> But *you* are god, daniel. Or are you the walrus ? Koo-koo-kachoo!
If I am god, and you are god, then why can't we agree with ourself?
I reject the notion of a schizoid god. That's even scarier than a
Judeo-Christian god.
Michel Rochman
>> Next question... How would you feel if someone had a rape fantasy
>> about you...and the fantasy they had was about you raping them?
>I'd love it. Men with imagination are so difficult to find.
Naaaah! You're just not looking in the right place... <hint><hint>
I guess female rapists are just like Santa... you believe they exist until
you grow old enough to find out they really don't. Poooh! :-(
Michel "official.male.net.slut" to be
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michel Rochman / HP Signal Analysis Division / mic...@hpsadmz.hp.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dans ce terrain vague de Nanterre, nous etions dix et toi par terre"
-- Au Bonheur Des Dames
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brett W Johnson
>I write:
>
>
> Well, actually, I'm going to be reincarnated as an otter, and live
>in Yosemite National Park and catch trouts with my teeth.
Actually I was refering to myself here... :)
Bill de Beaubien
>#define wrong "doing to someone that which that someone does not wish to have\
>happen to them" /* this is an operative rather than formal definition*/
Hmm... what about "friends don't let friends drive drunk?" Is it wrong to
stop someone who's drunk from driving, even if they want to? Even though
they'd be endangering others? (If they were just endangering themself, I
might be able to accept that it was wrong to stop them; after all, it's their
life, and they should be responsible for it).
Bill
--
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / w...@moscom.com
rodney hammer
>
>If I am god, and you are god, then why can't we agree with ourself?
>I reject the notion of a schizoid god. That's even scarier than a
>Judeo-Christian god.
>
>
>--
>Dan Mocsny
>Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu
I take it you've read _Valis_? :-) If not, you might give it a look...
Rod
--
**************************************************************************
ham...@ucs.indiana.edu NO DISCLAIMER! Everyone in the
Rod Hammer (812) 8558217 world shares my viewpoint....
**************************************************************************
Cedric Chin
"You're a virgin?"
"Yes."
"I can't believe that."
(My mail tool is taking forever to work, OK?)
--
I'm just against arbitrary oppressive social conditioning, that's all.
Somewhere in the Bay Area...
ced...@mariposa.sun.com
Also looking for a dance partner.
Greg Bullough
>(My mail tool is taking forever to work, OK?)
Greg
Carole Ashmore
> car...@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes:
>
> >> Next question... How would you feel if someone had a rape fantasy
> >> about you...and the fantasy they had was about you raping them?
>
> >I'd love it. Men with imagination are so difficult to find.
>
> Naaaah! You're just not looking in the right place... <hint><hint>
> I guess female rapists are just like Santa... you believe they exist until
> you grow old enough to find out they really don't. Poooh! :-(
>
> Michel "official.male.net.slut" to be
Hmmm. Afterward do I get to use this posting as evidence when I say,
"But Officer, he was asking for it."?
Oh, and wear something really sluttish so I can say, "He deserved it."
I want to do this right.
Carole Ashmore
Hillel Gazit
# I guess female rapists are just like Santa... you believe they exist until
# you grow old enough to find out they really don't. Poooh! :-(
#
# Michel "official.male.net.slut" to be
In article <97...@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> car...@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes:
>Hmmm. Afterward do I get to use this posting as evidence when I say,
>"But Officer, he was asking for it."?
>Oh, and wear something really sluttish so I can say, "He deserved it."
>I want to do this right.
So don't fist him.
He might go to the police and complain about rape if you will...
Michael Friedman
>In article <1991Feb20.1...@athena.mit.edu> bjoh...@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes:
>>If someone is pointing a gun at me or
>>rushing at me with a knife, I can and will justifiable assume that
>>they intend to do me serious bodily harm. I would feel no qualms
>>about killing someone in these circumstances.
> So, then, killing and maiming isn't wrong, just doing it to _you_
>is wrong....
> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
>to hurt people for *any* reason?
Heck, no.
Trivial example: Joe Rapist is ripping off a 16 year old girl's
clothes in the bushes. You are on the roof accross the street with a
rifle. Joe has ignored a warning shot. Blowing out Joe's brains is
right, good, and proper.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace through superior firepower.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Rochman
>Hmmm. Afterward do I get to use this posting as evidence when I say,
>"But Officer, he was asking for it."?
It wouldn't be fair otherwise.
>Oh, and wear something really sluttish so I can say, "He deserved it."
How 'bout zee cooking apron with nothing underneath? ;-)
>I want to do this right.
Yeah, promises, promises... :-)
Do you realize that I'll be an extremely dead slut the minute my
Bunny reads this? <not the pan> <not the pan> <bam!>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michel Rochman / HP Signal Analysis Division / mic...@hpsadmz.hp.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Le plastique c'est fantastique, le caoutchouc super doux..." -- EFB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
david Casperson
>> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
>>to hurt people for *any* reason?
mfri...@oracle.com (Michael Friedman) replies:
>Heck, no.
>Trivial example: Joe Rapist is ripping off a 16 year old girl's
>clothes in the bushes. You are on the roof accross the street with a
>rifle. Joe has ignored a warning shot. Blowing out Joe's brains is
>right, good, and proper.
I am disturbed by a society that has rapists hanging around in the
bushes, but I would be even more disturbed by a society that had
rapists had hanging around in the bushes, and people such as yourself
hanging around on the rooftops with rifles in their hands.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peace through superior firepower.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
and to whom precisely do you propose to give the inferior fire-power?
--
--david Casperson
In Montreal jay-walking is not only commonplace, it is part of your civic duty.
Antares.Conco...@overmind.mind.org
Pamela D. Hanes
>> From: mic...@hpsadmz.hp.com
>> How 'bout zee cooking apron with nothing underneath? ;-)
> I want to do this right.
>> Yeah, promises, promises... :-)
>> Do you realize that I'll be an extremely dead slut
>> the minute my Bunny reads this? <not the pan>
>> <not the pan> <bam!>
Michel, I'm soooo jealous... )-;
(Best boo-boo face on the net...)
~Pamela
"I ain't the woman in red, I ain't the girl next door, but if somewhere
in the middle is what you're looking for, I'm that kind of girl..."
Desiree Champagne
>
Michel (intelligently) sez:
>
>> Do you realize that I'll be an extremely dead slut
>> the minute my Bunny reads this? <not the pan>
>> <not the pan> <bam!>
> Michel, I'm soooo jealous... )-;
You're jealous of a bunny? My god woman. It's only a little
rabbit. Myself, I tend to worry about the sheep.
> (Best boo-boo face on the net...)
Awww don't cry. You'll get over it. It's only a male slut,
after all.
Desiree
<insert gig about smiley's here>
Okay, give me back the pan now.
<bam!>
Michael Friedman
>l...@logic.dsg.ti.com (Lou Marco (WRAT)) :
>>> I _am_ being purposfully obtuse, but my point is that isn't it wrong
>>>to hurt people for *any* reason?
>mfri...@oracle.com (Michael Friedman) replies:
>>Heck, no.
>>Trivial example: Joe Rapist is ripping off a 16 year old girl's
>>clothes in the bushes. You are on the roof accross the street with a
>>rifle. Joe has ignored a warning shot. Blowing out Joe's brains is
>>right, good, and proper.
>I am disturbed by a society that has rapists hanging around in the
>bushes,
Yup. But we live in such a society.
>but I would be even more disturbed by a society that had
>rapists had hanging around in the bushes, and people such as yourself
>hanging around on the rooftops with rifles in their hands.
Actually, I too would be a bit nervous walking arround downtown if
such activities were common. On the other hand, if you happen to be
on the roof with the rifle (i.e. you're the janitor and you're
cleaning up there and you find out someone has stashed it there and
then you notice Joe in the bushes) should you shoot Joe?
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Peace through superior firepower.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>and to whom precisely do you propose to give the inferior fire-power?
Joe Rapist, of course.
--
The countries that have contributed more to Desert Shield/Storm than
Japan and Germany include Argentina, Senegal, and the Afghan Mujahedein.
The idea of the former Axis powers taking a leading role in world
affairs now seems rather ludicrous.
Daniel Mocsny
>>>Trivial example: Joe Rapist is ripping off a 16 year old girl's
>>>clothes in the bushes. You are on the roof accross the street with a
>>>rifle. Joe has ignored a warning shot. Blowing out Joe's brains is
>>>right, good, and proper.
Suppose Joe Upstanding did not have sex with the 16 year old girl,
but she falsely accuses him of doing so.
Will you shoot the girl? If not, why not? If rape is a capital crime,
then falsely accusing of rape should also be a capital crime.
Also, please note that in some states you will be a "rapist" if you
have sex with a girl/woman below the age of consent, even if she
wants to have sex with you.
So will you blow a man's brains out for having sex with a willing
girl/woman a day or two before she reaches the local age of consent?
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <77...@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>> Will you shoot the girl? If not, why not? If rape is a capital crime,
>> then falsely accusing of rape should also be a capital crime.
>
Suppose a woman invites you to have sex with her. You agree. Further
assume that exactly halfway through the act (which would be, on average,
one minute of elapsed time from initial penetration, according to
Nick Szabo's figures) she tells you to stop.
You are understandably miffed. Suppose you procrastinate a little on
getting out of this bad situation. In exactly how many seconds will you
become a rapist? How many seconds after that would a passing rifleman
be justified in blowing your brains out?
And, most importantly, when have you become "violent"? She asked you to
have sex; you really wanted to have sex; and now she wants you to quit
before you finish. You didn't have to do anything violent to get where
you are now. You don't even have to do anything violent to continue,
unless she gets violent with you first.
In other words, a clearly non-violent act just became "violent",
according to your definition above. How did this happen?
Jeff d'Arcy
> On the other hand, if you happen to be
> on the roof with the rifle (i.e. you're the janitor and you're
> cleaning up there and you find out someone has stashed it there and
> then you notice Joe in the bushes) should you shoot Joe?
...and risk a misfire, or a booby trap, or...? Hell, no! I'd check that
sucker out *pretty damn thoroughly* before I fired it, and by then (unless
he's a truly exceptional individual) Joe would be long since finished.
Really, don't you know how dangerous it could be to fire a rifle you just
met? No end of trouble. Sheesh.
Jeff d'Arcy, Generic Software Engineer - jda...@encore.com
The problem with maintaining an open mind is all the crap people throw into it
Tigger
> but she falsely accuses him of doing so.
>
> Will you shoot the girl? If not, why not? If rape is a capital crime,
> then falsely accusing of rape should also be a capital crime.
Wrong. Rape is a generally violent physical act against another person.
An accusation is just words (though words that can carry a great deal of
weight). So I wouldn't shoot her. I would, however, be more than happy
to slap a chastity belt on her for the next twenty or thirty years.
> [paragraph about statutory rape deleted]
>
> So will you blow a man's brains out for having sex with a willing
> girl/woman a day or two before she reaches the local age of consent?
No. I don't care about the legal definition of "rape." Any adult who wants
to have sex with a child probably needs to have his or her head examined, but
if the child is mature enough to truely give consent, then it's not rape. Of
course, young children aren't mature enough to truely give consent.
| Greg Orman gr...@pomona.claremont.edu |
| If you can't stand up for something, you'll fall for anything. |
Jeff Forbes
>In article <1991Mar14...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>In article <77...@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>>> Will you shoot the girl? If not, why not? If rape is a capital crime,
>>> then falsely accusing of rape should also be a capital crime.
>>
>>Wrong. Rape is a generally violent physical act against another person.
>
>Suppose a woman invites you to have sex with her. You agree. Further
>assume that exactly halfway through the act (which would be, on average,
>one minute of elapsed time from initial penetration, according to
>Nick Szabo's figures) she tells you to stop.
>
>You are understandably miffed. Suppose you procrastinate a little on
>getting out of this bad situation. In exactly how many seconds will you
>become a rapist? How many seconds after that would a passing rifleman
>be justified in blowing your brains out?
While we are imagining different scenarios, how about this one. What if
the woman is on top and she tells you to stop?
Jeff Forbes
"....I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Edison
Tigger
> In article <1991Mar14...@sif.claremont.edu> gr...@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>>In article <77...@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>>>
>>> Will you shoot the girl? If not, why not? If rape is a capital crime,
>>> then falsely accusing of rape should also be a capital crime.
>>
>>Wrong. Rape is a generally violent physical act against another person.
>
> Suppose a woman invites you to have sex with her. You agree. Further
> assume that exactly halfway through the act (which would be, on average,
> one minute of elapsed time from initial penetration, according to
> Nick Szabo's figures) she tells you to stop.
>
That is an interesing situation, Dan, but I don't think the answers really
matter. Maybe I'm just naive, but I really don't think that what you describe
happens very often, if at all. I can see a woman saying stop at some point
halfway throught the evening's 'festivities' as a whole, or even within
seconds of penetration. But a minute or two later? I just don't buy it.
Even if it did happen, once she has invited you in (literally) and you've
been there a while, you are not 'violating' her. I personally wouldn't
finish the act, though. I would get dressed, leave, and never talk to the
woman again. If I continued for another ten minutes it would be rape. If
I continued for the thirty seconds or so that it would take me to realize
that she was serious, I don't think I would be at fault. It's not a matter
of which second one crosses the line. It's not a time thing. As soon as I
stop respecting her wishes and start having intercourse with her against her
will, excepting a small amount of 'reaction time', it becomes rape.
Anyway, like I said, it's a fairly academic question. I just don't believe
it happens like this very often, if at all. As I said before (you can check
the included text above) rape is _generally_ a violent crime. The situation
you descibe is an exception to the rule.
| Greg Orman gr...@pomona.claremont.edu |
| If a member of Congress is investigated for taking bribes, you'll |
| notice that something else usually turns up, such as a penchant for |
| enjoying the company of young goats. |
| - John C. Dvorak |
Daniel Mocsny
>While we are imagining different scenarios, how about this one. What if
>the woman is on top and she tells you to stop?
She couldn't be, it's illegal in Cincinnati.
Chris Franklin
> dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>
> In article <1991Mar15.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
> for...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Jeff Forbes) writes:
> >While we are imagining different scenarios, how about this one. What if
> >the woman is on top and she tells you to stop?
>
> She couldn't be, it's illegal in Cincinnati.
Wait, let me make sure I have this right (hang on, let me get a pen and
paper). In Cincinnati, it's illegal for a woman on top to tell you to
stop???
cf
Jeff Forbes
>>While we are imagining different scenarios, how about this one. What if
>>the woman is on top and she tells you to stop?
>
>She couldn't be, it's illegal in Cincinnati.
That's news to me. I grew up in Cincinnati.
Evan Bigall
That is an interesing situation, Dan, but I don't think the answers really
matter. Maybe I'm just naive, but I really don't think that what you
describe happens very often, if at all.
I don't know about naive, but you may suffer from limited perspective. I've
seen both sides of Dan's scenario. But then I tend to get involved with
""intersting"" people. I've also had it happen under very emotional
circumstances where all of a sudden someone realizes that what they're doing
is not such a great idea. Am I the only one to make love to someone while
crying?
/Evan
--
Evan Bigall, Plexus Software, Santa Clara CA (408)982-4840 ...!sun!plx!evan
"I barely have the authority to speak for myself, certainly not anybody else"
Larry Margolis
> In article <1991Mar13.0...@oracle.com> mfri...@oracle.UUCP (Michael Fri
> >>>Trivial example: Joe Rapist is ripping off a 16 year old girl's
> >>>clothes in the bushes. You are on the roof accross the street with a
> >>>rifle. Joe has ignored a warning shot. Blowing out Joe's brains is
> >>>right, good, and proper.
> Suppose Joe Upstanding did not have sex with the 16 year old girl,
> but she falsely accuses him of doing so.
If you see him doing it, there's no accusation involved, false or otherwise.
> Also, please note that in some states you will be a "rapist" if you
> have sex with a girl/woman below the age of consent, even if she
> wants to have sex with you.
Statutory rape is different. Nothing to do with the quoted example, in which
she did *not* give her consent.
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), MAR...@IBM.COM (csnet)
Daniel Mocsny
>In <77...@uceng.UC.EDU> dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>> Suppose Joe Upstanding did not have sex with the 16 year old girl,
>> but she falsely accuses him of doing so.
>
>If you see him doing it, there's no accusation involved, false or otherwise.
However, in my scenario I did not see him doing it. We have already
heard some people suggesting that if I see a man raping a woman,
I am justified in blowing his brains out. So now I am asking this:
if rape is capital offense, should falsely accusing of rape be a
capital offense too? If not, why not? Is getting an innocent man killed
somehow not worse than a man raping a woman?
Personally, I don't see how a man raping a woman gives me any right
to blow his brains out. In keeping with an "eye for an eye", I'd say
we should let him keep his brains, but have someone rape him. I'll
pass.
My duty as a citizen is to uphold the laws of the land. The law does
not classify rape as a capital offense, to the best of my knowledge.
Some time in the past, we had lynch mobs and vigilantes who dispensed
the brand of "justice" being advocated here. I prefer the present
system of somewhat civilized justice. It isn't as viscerally
satisfying, but everything is a compromise.
Therefore, if I saw a man raping a woman, and I was highly certain of
what I was seeing, I would call the police, then do what I could to
increase the probability that the criminal would be apprehended and
brought to justice. Shooting him in the leg (if we are assuming I have
a gun, and I am a crack shot---two very hypothetical assumptions---and
besides, even a trained sniper would have a tough time firing at two
intertwined, moving bodies without nailing the wrong person) would be
a reasonable option if the police weren't going to arrive promptly.
>> Also, please note that in some states you will be a "rapist" if you
>> have sex with a girl/woman below the age of consent, even if she
>> wants to have sex with you.
>
>Statutory rape is different. Nothing to do with the quoted example, in which
>she did *not* give her consent.
Then why did the quoted example tell us the age of the victim? Merely
to invoke some sort of emotional response?
Kristen Kohlbecker
>is not such a great idea. Am I the only one to make love to someone while
>crying?
Heck no....happened to me too, once or twice, but nice girls don't talk
about such things so I'll shut up now...
>/Evan
>--
Tyger
*****************************************************************
Kristen Kohlbecker Through the darkness of future past
The magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds,
"Fire, walk with me" - Twin Peaks
*****************************************************************
Ian Finch
>
> Suppose a woman invites you to have sex with her. You agree. Further
> You are understandably miffed. Suppose you procrastinate a little on
> getting out of this bad situation. In exactly how many seconds will you
> become a rapist?
>
withdraw, and haven't. As for the exact number of seconds, this would
presumeably depend on many factors such as the position of the participants
and their fitness levels. The situation is, of course, far-fetched and so the
reckoning is difficult (I mean, how do you practice this?), but as pointed out
in a similar discussion on this group a while back, how long would it take you
to get out of a similar situation if your partner suddenly yelled at you that
they had done themself some serious harm (sprained an ankle or something)?
> And, most importantly, when have you become "violent"? She asked you to
> have sex; you really wanted to have sex; and now she wants you to quit
> before you finish. You didn't have to do anything violent to get where
> you are now. You don't even have to do anything violent to continue,
> unless she gets violent with you first.
>
I regard violence as being something to do with feelings rather than actions.
If a man forces himself upon a woman and rapes her, that is clearly violence
because there is an obvious violent act. If your hypothetical man, when told
by the woman mid-stroke to stop, thinks ``Well, I'm not going to stop now!'',
he is being violent (even if the act isn't obviously violent) because of his
attitude.
To take another example, someone annoys you sufficiently that you feel like
hitting them. I would call this a violent feeling and say that `you have
become "violent"', whether or not this violence actually manifests itself in
physical violence (like actually hitting someone) or whether you walk away
from the situation. Conversely, whilst I am in the dojo throwing people
around or hitting people holding impact pads, I do not feel violent even
though the physical act would seem to belie this.
> In other words, a clearly non-violent act just became "violent",
> according to your definition above. How did this happen?
>
So, to get back to this point, the act became violent when the intention
behind the act changed; when your attitude changed to one of determination
to `finish'.
Ian
---
// Janet: i...@uk.ac.liv.cs.and // What's a word processor? //
// Internet: i...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk // Well, you know what a food //
// UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!liv-cs!ian // processor does to food ... //
Larry Margolis
> In article <1991Mar16....@arnor.uucp> mar...@ibm.com writes:
> >In <77...@uceng.UC.EDU> dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
> >> Suppose Joe Upstanding did not have sex with the 16 year old girl,
> >> but she falsely accuses him of doing so.
> >
> >If you see him doing it, there's no accusation involved, false or otherwise.
>
> However, in my scenario I did not see him doing it. We have already
> heard some people suggesting that if I see a man raping a woman,
> I am justified in blowing his brains out. So now I am asking this:
> if rape is capital offense, should falsely accusing of rape be a
> capital offense too?
OK, that explains your confusion. A capital crime is one which is punishable
by death, after trial and conviction. We're not talking about capital
punishment here. In New York (I don't know about elsewhere), the use of
deadly physical force is permissable to *prevent* or *terminate* certain
crimes. (These being, the use of deadly physical force, rape (forcible),
burglary, arson, robbery, kidnapping, & sodomy (forcible). Acronym: Dr. Barks)
There are limitations - e.g., if I catch someone burglarizing my home, and
shoot him in the back as he's running out the door, it's not cool.
> Therefore, if I saw a man raping a woman, and I was highly certain of
> what I was seeing, I would call the police,
and by the time you got back from calling the police, he would be finished
and gone.
If I were strolling through Central Park, and came upon a rape being forcibly
committed, I would do my best to make sure the perpetrator was dead. Period.
Think how much money and court time is spent by avoiding all the trials and
appeals, and how much is saved on the cost of imprisonment *if* the SOB were
convicted.
> Some time in the past, we had lynch mobs and vigilantes who dispensed
> the brand of "justice" being advocated here.
Different situation. A "vigilance committee" is extralegally assuming the power
of the court; trying, convicting and executing judgement on the accused. What
I described above is the lawful killing of the perpetrator in order to terminate
his unlawful actions. Were I to come upon the scene after he was done, then
I would not be legally justified in killing him. Unless he resisted arrest.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this should not be construed as legal
advice. The above is my understanding of information I received from the NYC
Police Department as part of my Auxiliary Police training.
Lou Marco (WRAT)
>If I were strolling through Central Park, and came upon a rape being forcibly
>committed, I would do my best to make sure the perpetrator was dead. Period.
What would you do if you were walking in Central Park and came upon a
murder being committed?
wr
Debi Paxton
>and gone.
This is unfortunately all too true.
>If I were strolling through Central Park, and came upon a rape being forcibly
>committed, I would do my best to make sure the perpetrator was dead. Period.
Spoken like a True Texan.
--
It's useless to fight the forms. You've got to kill the people producing them.
(Vladimir Kabaldze, Genl Director, Ivanovo Machine Works, Moscow)
dpa...@emx.utexas.edu I said what?
Daniel Mocsny
>If your hypothetical man, when told
>by the woman mid-stroke to stop, thinks ``Well, I'm not going to stop now!'',
>he is being violent (even if the act isn't obviously violent) because of his
>attitude.
And what about the hypothetical woman, is she being violent? After all,
she thinks ``Well, I'm not going to let him finish now!''