UMD Rapist Poster Another Perspective
Ted Frank
>"Prick tease"
>just doesn't have the same impact as "rapist" or "whore," even though a
>woman like that can be devastating to a man's self esteem and safety--in
>much the same way that a rapist can damage women.
It's rather dismaying to see men so self-centered to think that a victim
of a "prick tease" is somehow comparable to a rape victim.
--
ted frank | "What does it mean when you say you're in love?
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | Does it mean the moon and the stars above?
the u of c law school | You don't need a lover, you need an interpreter"
standard disclaimers | -- CVB
roger colin shouse
>In article <1993Jul7.0...@informix.com> har...@informix.com (Robert Hartman) writes:
>>"Prick tease"
>>just doesn't have the same impact as "rapist" or "whore," even though a
>>woman like that can be devastating to a man's self esteem and safety--in
>>much the same way that a rapist can damage women.
>
>It's rather dismaying to see men so self-centered to think that a victim
>of a "prick tease" is somehow comparable to a rape victim.
>--
This depends on what you mean by "rape." I was rather dismayed myself
to read that under Canadian law, "consent" given by a woman under the
influence of alcohol is not considered valid in determining whether or
not "rape" has occured. Sorry folks, I just can't buy the notion that
its "rape" when a woman gets drunk and lets it happen.
--
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago Email: sh...@midway.uchicago.edu
Mark Evans
You should note that there is often a great difference in "consent"
given by a woman and "consent" when given by a man. Both in public
and legal attitudes.
Untill this can be resolved it is difficult to compare like with like,
thus any claims of the sort "There are more women raped than men" are
UNPROVABLE.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans |eva...@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199 (Home) |eva...@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office) |
ljf
>
>You should note that there is often a great difference in "consent"
>given by a woman and "consent" when given by a man. Both in public
>and legal attitudes.
>
>Untill this can be resolved it is difficult to compare like with like,
>thus any claims of the sort "There are more women raped than men" are
>UNPROVABLE.
You know, for a person who seems to hate what you have
called the "victim mentality," you seem in hog heaven with
the idea that just as many men as women are raped.
Bronis Vidugiris
)>"Prick tease"
)>just doesn't have the same impact as "rapist" or "whore," even though a
)>woman like that can be devastating to a man's self esteem and safety--in
)>much the same way that a rapist can damage women.
)
)It's rather dismaying to see men so self-centered to think that a victim
)of a "prick tease" is somehow comparable to a rape victim.
It's rather dismaying to see people misinterpret posts on the net because of
their own internal agendas. It happens all the time, of course, but it's still
dismaying :-(.
--
"Stop or I'll scream" -- Black Bolt
Charles Savoie
[...]
>
>This depends on what you mean by "rape." I was rather dismayed myself
>to read that under Canadian law, "consent" given by a woman under the
>influence of alcohol is not considered valid in determining whether or
>not "rape" has occured. Sorry folks, I just can't buy the notion that
>its "rape" when a woman gets drunk and lets it happen.
>Roger Shouse
There was a thread on this a while ago, and this position was generally
agreed upon, as long as both partners voluntarily drank alcohol, and
knew they were drinking alcohol, and were conscious.
Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
"mainstream" ones.
Charles
--
,.. . . . . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,.. =====================================
| |--| | | | |< | |- `-. Charles Savoie chuc...@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' ' ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' ''' =====================================
Matt Austern
> Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
> "mainstream" ones.
What a truly extraordinary concept. I notice that Mr. Savoie is
posting from Canada; there, maybe the authors of laws are radical
feminists (I'm not as familiar with Canadian politics as I ought to
be), but that is quite certainly not true in the United States.
In the United States, Federal laws are written by Congress, and
Congress is very definitely not controlled by radical feminists---or
by feminists of any sort, for that matter. Unless there's someone I'm
forgetting, there aren't any radical feminists in Congress at all, and
very feminists at all. There are a few (both California Senators call
themselves feminists, for example), but they are a distinctly tiny
minority.
--
Matthew Austern Maybe we can eventually make language a
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu complete impediment to understanding.
Charles Savoie
>In article <21qofs$i...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca> chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
>> "mainstream" ones.
>
>What a truly extraordinary concept. I notice that Mr. Savoie is
>posting from Canada; there, maybe the authors of laws are radical
>feminists (I'm not as familiar with Canadian politics as I ought to
>be), but that is quite certainly not true in the United States.
Well, we *were* talking about Canada, you know.
And how else do you explain such ridiculous laws.
One good example of someone who has written Canadian laws: yup, you
guessed it: Catherine (sp?) MacKinnon.
[...]
>Matthew Austern Maybe we can eventually make language a
>ma...@physics.berkeley.edu complete impediment to understanding.
Charles
Mark Evans
: In the United States, Federal laws are written by Congress, and
: Congress is very definitely not controlled by radical feminists---or
: by feminists of any sort, for that matter. Unless there's someone I'm
Unless you are very familier with that organisation and the way it works
you simply cannot make that claim.
Do you really think that people who wish to control political systems,
without being caught, will do so in the view of the media.
: forgetting, there aren't any radical feminists in Congress at all, and
: very feminists at all. There are a few (both California Senators call
: themselves feminists, for example), but they are a distinctly tiny
: minority.
Right you have eliminated the politicians, now how about their lovers,
friends, political support team, advisors and anyone else who might
have influence over them.
In a structure such as that wish exists in the USA politicians ARE
puppets, the only question is who is pulling the strings, theoretically
the people who voted for them, but that is rarely the case.
Chris Holt
Most casual observers would interpret "in much the same way" as
similar to "somehow comparable". What particular misinterpretation
are you referring to?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chameleons feed on light and air: / Programmers' food is life and pain.
Henry E. Schaffer
>Matt Austern (ma...@physics2.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>
>: In the United States, Federal laws are written by Congress, and
>: Congress is very definitely not controlled by radical feminists---or
>: by feminists of any sort, for that matter. Unless there's someone I'm
>
>Unless you are very familier with that organisation and the way it works
>you simply cannot make that claim.
>Do you really think that people who wish to control political systems,
>without being caught, will do so in the view of the media.
Good point - so then it must be that all the control is in the hands
of people who are not visible to the media and who are exactly the ones
we wouldn't suspect.
>
>: forgetting, there aren't any radical feminists in Congress at all, and
>: very feminists at all. There are a few (both California Senators call
>: themselves feminists, for example), but they are a distinctly tiny
>: minority.
>
>Right you have eliminated the politicians, now how about their lovers,
>friends, political support team, advisors and anyone else who might
>have influence over them.
But the radical feminists are much too visible, and are constantly
in the lime light (Limb-light?) so we've got to eliminate them from
consideration. How about such traditional suspects as the Catholics,
Jews, Freemasons, gays or Communists? Nope, all too visible. The
*only* candidate left is the Basque Separatist Front (FSBL) - and
*they* are in control of all the legislation written in the U.S. of A.
Now you know.
>
>In a structure such as that wish exists in the USA politicians ARE
>puppets, the only question is who is pulling the strings, theoretically
>the people who voted for them, but that is rarely the case.
--sebastian tombs
Ed Falk
>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
>> "mainstream" ones.
>
>What a truly extraordinary concept. I notice that Mr. Savoie is
>posting from Canada; there, maybe the authors of laws are radical
>feminists (I'm not as familiar with Canadian politics as I ought to
>be), but that is quite certainly not true in the United States.
>
>In the United States, Federal laws are written by Congress, and
>Congress is very definitely not controlled by radical feminists---or
>by feminists of any sort, for that matter. Unless there's someone I'm
>forgetting, there aren't any radical feminists in Congress at all, and
>very feminists at all. There are a few (both California Senators call
>themselves feminists, for example), but they are a distinctly tiny
>minority.
Interesting data point: a friend of mine was the state lobbyiest for
New York N.O.W.. She said she tended to get more support from
conservatives than from liberals in the government whenever she was
pushing for some bill or another to protect women.
For example, I remember when she was lobbying for a bill that would
prevent family court judges from arbitrarily waving arrearage in
alimony and child-support cases. Conservative legislators would
be on her side because they had the woman-needs-to-be-supported-by-a-man
mindset, and liberals would say things like "Well, *my* wife is a
lawyer and makes more money than I do, so I don't see why we even
need alimony any more".
She felt kind of weird everytime she found herself aligned with the
conservatives.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
Ed Falk
>
>: In the United States, Federal laws are written by Congress, and
>: Congress is very definitely not controlled by radical feminists---or
>: by feminists of any sort, for that matter. Unless there's someone I'm
>
>Unless you are very familier with that organisation and the way it works
>you simply cannot make that claim.
>Do you really think that people who wish to control political systems,
>without being caught, will do so in the view of the media.
Whoa, whoa, slow down. Let me write this down. You're saying that the
government is quietly run by an unseen, shadowy cabal of radical
feminists? A secret society run by the likes of Dworkin & MacKinnon?
An underground network of wild-eyed feminazis pulling the strings of
the Illuminati?
That's fantastic. I never would have figured it out on my own. The
implications are astounding. Why, I'll bet that Dworkin
single-handedly masterminded the new anti-gay legislation in Colorado
and Oregon.
All I can say is: thank god for the Internet. I never knew half
this stuff before.
Bronis Vidugiris
)
)> Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
)> "mainstream" ones.
)
)What a truly extraordinary concept. I notice that Mr. Savoie is
)posting from Canada; there, maybe the authors of laws are radical
)feminists (I'm not as familiar with Canadian politics as I ought to
)be), but that is quite certainly not true in the United States.
)
)In the United States, Federal laws are written by Congress, and
)Congress is very definitely not controlled by radical feminists---or
)by feminists of any sort, for that matter. Unless there's someone I'm
)forgetting, there aren't any radical feminists in Congress at all, and
)very feminists at all. There are a few (both California Senators call
)themselves feminists, for example), but they are a distinctly tiny
)minority.
I'm not sure how much Federal laws are really 'written by Congress' even
in the US.
Most legislation (IMO) originates with lobbying groups. It ultimately has
to be passed by Congress to become law, but I don't think it's really
written by Congress in the first place - not usually.
Jen Kilmer
>of a "prick tease" is somehow comparable to a rape victim.
Indeed. However what was done at UMD was unfair. So, if any UMD students
are reading this and want to "even things up":
A) find out who organized the "this man is a potential rapist" posters.
B) create one poster for each organizer. Captions:
This person potentially will tie up a man at gunpoint, [beat him |
cut him | shoot him], and shove [a dildo | a heated curling iron |
a broken bottle] up his anus.
Where did I get such lovely descriptions? I read a few police reports
describing what had happened to rape victims.
-jen
--
-= Microsoft doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for microsoft =-
je...@microsoft.com msdos testing
Karen Hooper
|>
|> This depends on what you mean by "rape." I was rather dismayed myself
|> to read that under Canadian law, "consent" given by a woman under the
|> influence of alcohol is not considered valid in determining whether or
|> not "rape" has occured. Sorry folks, I just can't buy the notion that
|> its "rape" when a woman gets drunk and lets it happen.
|> --
|> Roger Shouse
|> The University of Chicago Email: sh...@midway.uchicago.edu
|>
I think that also can vary. Say a woman has a buzz, or is almost drunk, and her
inhibitions are out the window--later she hollers rape. OK, I see your point. But
what about when the woman is drunk, say, because someone slipped her a drink, or
whatever, and some guy takes advantage of her when she is too far gone to protect
herself. There can be extenuating circumstances, and we can't just throw a
blanket accusation and say if she was drunk it wasn't rape, or on the other hand,
if she was drunk he should have known better and it was rape. Each case is
different.
Bronis Vidugiris
)In article <1993Jul13.1...@aston.ac.uk> eva...@m47321.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
)>Do you really think that people who wish to control political systems,
)>without being caught, will do so in the view of the media.
)
)Whoa, whoa, slow down. Let me write this down. You're saying that the
)government is quietly run by an unseen, shadowy cabal of radical
)feminists? A secret society run by the likes of Dworkin & MacKinnon?
)An underground network of wild-eyed feminazis pulling the strings of
)the Illuminati?
)
)That's fantastic. I never would have figured it out on my own. The
)implications are astounding. Why, I'll bet that Dworkin
)single-handedly masterminded the new anti-gay legislation in Colorado
)and Oregon.
)
)All I can say is: thank god for the Internet. I never knew half
)this stuff before.
Nah. It's stranger than that.
Special interest groups (say Dworkin or MacKinnon) come up with laws that meet
their special interests. Concerns of fairness don't enter much into the
legislation they draft.
Due to widespread apathy and the basic complexity of society, these laws
occasionally get rammed through Congress and/or State or Local legislatures.
The politicans do a min-max computation and figure they will get definite
support from the special interest groups, and not that much flack from the rest
of society. So they pass them.
Then its up to the courts. Sometimes the Courts actually figure out when a
law violates the Constitutional protections and throw them out, other times
they look the other way and come up with some truly fascinating rationalizations
to explain why they're not going to do anything.
At least that's how it is in the US. I'm not sure how things work in the UK
for example. I expect that Parliment is pretty similar to Congress, but I
have a feeling the courts may have less influence in the UK than in the US
(hard to be sure).
ljf
>you simply cannot make that claim.
>Do you really think that people who wish to control political systems,
>without being caught, will do so in the view of the media.
>
>puppets, the only question is who is pulling the strings, theoretically
>the people who voted for them, but that is rarely the case.
I think we should add alt.conspiracy to that newsgroup list.
Mark Evans
: |>
: |> This depends on what you mean by "rape." I was rather dismayed myself
: |> to read that under Canadian law, "consent" given by a woman under the
: |> influence of alcohol is not considered valid in determining whether or
: |> not "rape" has occured. Sorry folks, I just can't buy the notion that
: |> its "rape" when a woman gets drunk and lets it happen.
: |> --
: |> Roger Shouse
: |> The University of Chicago Email: sh...@midway.uchicago.edu
: |>
: I think that also can vary. Say a woman has a buzz, or is almost drunk, and her
: inhibitions are out the window--later she hollers rape. OK, I see your point. But
: what about when the woman is drunk, say, because someone slipped her a drink, or
: whatever, and some guy takes advantage of her when she is too far gone to protect
: herself. There can be extenuating circumstances, and we can't just throw a
Isn't it also relevent in this case if the person who "slipped her the drink" and
the one who "took advantage" (ignoring the traditional view of sexual dynamics for
a minute) are the same person or have any connection (or knowleage of each others)
: blanket accusation and say if she was drunk it wasn't rape, or on the other hand,
: if she was drunk he should have known better and it was rape. Each case is
: different.
Also maybe considering who initiated the sex should be considered.
The ammount the other party has had to drink, if they had been "slipped a drink".
What about the huge double standard reflected in your use of the terms "too far
gone to protect herself" and "some guy took advantage of her"?
What would you say in the case of a man being "too far gone to protect himself"
and "some girl took advantage of him" then she cried rape? (or simply threated
to)
Duane Hentrich
No. Not by any means. I think he's saying more that of the people who
arre powerful in this political system, the ones we see, e.g. Senators,
candidates..., are a subset, and that the ones we see might not be the
most powerful.
I know if I were powerful I would spend some of it to keep me out of the
media circus.
--
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ba...@Tymnet.Com
We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence.
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Mark Wilson
So you feel that most politicians are not more concerned with the opinions
of libbyists with money than they are in the opinions of the people they
were theoretically elected to represent?
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
William J Gollatz
the state of the victim to be taken into consideration to determine whether or
not a rape was committed, unless all people involved were under the influence.
That is one of the reasons Fraternities exist. I used to be a member of one
until I found out the true objectives of the parties. Get the females drunk so
that they will consent to sex. I doubt many females go to the parties to be
put into a state where the female can not make normal choices. If a female is
drunk, she can not (and neither can a male) make decisions that that person
would normally make. *THAT'S WHY* those fraternities I was involved with like
to bring in females. Just try to get into a party and be a male. If you are
a half decent looking female, you can get into any party that you want.
A sober person, using a drunken person for sex, is CLEARLY victimizing that
drunken person. Instances like this happen not just in Frats, but in many
other situations. IF someone wants sex from someone, and that person won't
give in, the best way is to alter that person's mind so that the person will
voluntarily give in.
Now, many 'victims' could turn around and sober sex and say that she/he was
taken advantage of while drunk. But of course that must be proven. But in
cases where it can be proven, by all means, that is rape. Now I am sure that
sex between a drunken person and a sober person that were couples before,
would put the case into a new light if they we sex partners, but such laws
should clearly apply to cases where someone was indeed in a blantently
victimizable situation, such as a Fraternity Party. I know myself some females
that went to some parties, and woke up the next day, finding out they had sex
with someone against their own will. They went to the parties, but not to have
sex with anyone that chose them, they went to socialize, have some beer, but
got carried away, and then were raped while under the influence, and we
incapable of giving and conveying a true reply to sexual advances.
Chris Holt
ba...@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>fart...@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>|> I think we should add alt.conspiracy to that newsgroup list.
>No. Not by any means. I think he's saying more that of the people who
>arre powerful in this political system, the ones we see, e.g. Senators,
>candidates..., are a subset, and that the ones we see might not be the
>most powerful.
>I know if I were powerful I would spend some of it to keep me out of the
>media circus.
We haven't heard much about Bechtel lately...
groovy feminazi
>In article <1993Jul11.1...@midway.uchicago.edu> sh...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>[...]
>>
>>This depends on what you mean by "rape." I was rather dismayed myself
>>to read that under Canadian law, "consent" given by a woman under the
>>influence of alcohol is not considered valid in determining whether or
>>not "rape" has occured. Sorry folks, I just can't buy the notion that
>>its "rape" when a woman gets drunk and lets it happen.
>There was a thread on this a while ago, and this position was generally
>agreed upon, as long as both partners voluntarily drank alcohol, and
>knew they were drinking alcohol, and were conscious.
When exactly was this generally agreed upon, Charles?
>Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
>"mainstream" ones.
Anyone can write laws, Charles. The laws that get passed, and how the
laws are enforced, is the sticking point. This statement 'written by
radical feminists' seems to be made simply to frighten those anti-
fems who are already afraid enough of women as it is.
Laura
groovy feminazi
>Unless you are very familier with that organisation and the way it works
>you simply cannot make that claim.
>Do you really think that people who wish to control political systems,
>without being caught, will do so in the view of the media.
and:
>Right you have eliminated the politicians, now how about their lovers,
>friends, political support team, advisors and anyone else who might
>have influence over them.
>In a structure such as that wish exists in the USA politicians ARE
>puppets, the only question is who is pulling the strings, theoretically
>the people who voted for them, but that is rarely the case.
Conspiracy theories are so comforting, aren't they? All the political
climates in the world put together, you still have to have these things
actually written down and enforced for them to have sticking power.
All of this above it fearspeak... you are demonizing every aspect of
feminism as bad, and as insidious. If it weren't for the fact that I
don't find fear of other people to be amusing, but sad, I would most
likely make derogatory comments about the above commentary.
Laura
Dan Swartzendruber
Someone sent me email comparing a woman getting drunk in a bar, going
home with a guy and having sex with him)with a guy in the same bar
getting drunk, taking a prostitute out and being rolled by her. The
question asked was "was he any less robbed?" Unfortunately, the
return address in the email was corrupt and my response bounced.
Basically, I feel this is a flawed analogy, since drunks are rolled
(as I understand it) after they fall asleep (or pass out). A better
comparison would have been a woman picking up a drunk at a bar in Las
Vegas, for example, and having him buy her all kinds of drinks, food
and/or other things. And no, I wouldn't charge her with anything in
that situation.
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Dan S.
Charles Savoie
>
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>>There was a thread on this a while ago, and this position was generally
>>agreed upon, as long as both partners voluntarily drank alcohol, and
>>knew they were drinking alcohol, and were conscious.
>
The thread was quite a while ago... months, perhaps a year.
It turned into a discussion of "well if he gave her alcohol
to take advantage of her..." rather than "if she and he got drunk
and had sex..."
>>Unfortunately, it seems that laws get written by radical feminists, not
>>"mainstream" ones.
>Anyone can write laws, Charles. The laws that get passed, and how the
>laws are enforced, is the sticking point.
The point was that this was a law that did get passed. As for how
it is going to be enforced, I don't see very much room in the
law for interpretation. Either you can consider consent given
while drunk as being valid, or you can't. If the law says you
can't, then all drunk sex is rape is the woman wants to call it
that. N'est-ce pas?
>This statement 'written by
>radical feminists' seems to be made simply to frighten those anti-
>fems who are already afraid enough of women as it is.
Well, I believe that anyone who feels this is a fair law is
a radical feminist. And I do find the law frightening. I
do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
it aloud is enough.
>Laura
Rolfe G. Petschek
Actually some such situations are fraud and such. The laws of the state
of Ohio related to sexual conduct with drunks include
2907.02 Rape; evidence; marriage or cohabitation not defenses to rape
charges
(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not
the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is
living separate and apart from the offender, when either of the
following apply
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender
substantially impairs the other person's judgement or control by
administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person,
surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
2907.03 Sexual battery
(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the
spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:
(2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the
nature of or control his or her own conduct is substantially impaired.
(3) The offender knows that the other person submits because he or she
is unaware that the act is being committed.
Rape is an aggravated first degree felony (up to 20 years in prison) and
Sexual battery is a third degree felony. Suggestions for changes to
these laws are, as always welcome. Last time I posted them there were
no such suggestions, suggesting that they represent a reasonable
concensus. *I* agree with them.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek Pets...@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics r...@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University (216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Paul Wallich
> The laws of the state
>of Ohio related to sexual conduct with drunks include
>
>2907.02 Rape; evidence; marriage or cohabitation not defenses to rape
>charges
>(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not
>the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is
>living separate and apart from the offender, when either of the
>following apply
> (a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender
>substantially impairs the other person's judgement or control by
>administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person,
>surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
>
>2907.03 Sexual battery
>(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the
>spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:
> (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the
>nature of or control his or her own conduct is substantially impaired.
> (3) The offender knows that the other person submits because he or she
>is unaware that the act is being committed.
>
>Rape is an aggravated first degree felony (up to 20 years in prison) and
>Sexual battery is a third degree felony. Suggestions for changes to
>these laws are, as always welcome. Last time I posted them there were
>no such suggestions, suggesting that they represent a reasonable
>concensus. *I* agree with them.
There's one point where I don't agree with them, underlined above.
Somehow getting your spouse drunk by force or deception etc to
have sex with them is imo at least as heinous as doing same to a
non-spouse.
What's the law in Ohio on spousal rape in general?
paul
alix
personally i'd prefer to take the "not the spouse of the offender"
part out. i see no reason why being married should give anyone
the right to do things that would be against the law if one is
not married.
-alix
Gavin Flower
First I should say that, even in a happily married situation, both
partners should be considerate of each other, and be aware that
sometimes the other wants at most some affection, even when both are
naked in the same bed. However, as far as anyone else is concerned,
it is reasonable to assume an implied consent that both partners are
in a relationship where the act of sexual intercourse is acceptable to
both, *unless* there is evidence to the contrary - the reverse is
appropiate when not married (couples living together..., treat as
married?).
No partner should force the other to have sex with them, but it is a
little stupid to give lawyers the chance to make money and ruin a
couples marriage out of encouraging irritated spouses to indulge in
litigation. The situation should either be resolved by mediation, or
the two should split and live separately - better still would be
education into the nature of sexuality, the differences between the
genders, and encourage them to respect each other.
The spouse bit is *very* important to leave in! Do you really wish
that couples be afraid to have sex when one, or other, is drunk, for
fear of potential litigation? It is difficult for courts to rule in
genuine cases, without additional vexatious litigation!
Consider a situation were a woman is slightly inebriated on her
birthday, tells her spouse that she really loves him, encourages him to
have sex with her, then leaves him a month later, and claims he raped
her. Short of having a video recording, how can he defend himself? I
suspect any video, at best, would still be ambiguous.
A key principle of justice is not to punish innocent people. The scope
for litigious abuse, by removing the references to spouse, is
immense, far more than the likely remedies that a genuinely injured
spice would get. IMHO
Gavin
--
Tomorrow's Society | flow...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Depends on ----------------------------
Today's Children - help us raise them properly!
******* These comments have no known correlation with dept. policy! *******
alix
>First I should say that, even in a happily married situation, both
>partners should be considerate of each other, and be aware that
>sometimes the other wants at most some affection, even when both are
>naked in the same bed. However, as far as anyone else is concerned,
>it is reasonable to assume an implied consent that both partners are
>in a relationship where the act of sexual intercourse is acceptable to
>both, *unless* there is evidence to the contrary - the reverse is
>appropiate when not married (couples living together..., treat as
>married?).
so what evidence to the contrary would you accept? it appears
froma recent court ruling that not even videotape of your
spouse raping you is good enough evidence. i'd had it with
this BS of the marriage certificate giving anyone an excuse
to do things to one's spouse one would not dare do to another
person. yes, indeed, people should be considerate of each
other. clearly the law does not need to be, and is indeed
not written for the considerate person, but for those who do
abuse their partner.
>No partner should force the other to have sex with them, but it is a
>little stupid to give lawyers the chance to make money and ruin a
>couples marriage out of encouraging irritated spouses to indulge in
>litigation. The situation should either be resolved by mediation, or
>the two should split and live separately - better still would be
>education into the nature of sexuality, the differences between the
>genders, and encourage them to respect each other.
leap of logic. people ruin their own marriages; they don't
need lawyers for that. if somebody goes to the effort of
filing charges against somebody else, the marriage is in
deep trouble. people are usually a little further along than
merely "irritated". how you solve the problem of people not
understanding each other is an entirely different problem
from writing the law so that certain actions, which we con-
sider to be wrong, are punishable _if needed_.
>The spouse bit is *very* important to leave in! Do you really wish
>that couples be afraid to have sex when one, or other, is drunk, for
>fear of potential litigation? It is difficult for courts to rule in
>genuine cases, without additional vexatious litigation!
pray tell, shouldn't you then argue for the abolishment of
this law alltogether? after all, whether married or not,
do you really wish couples to be afraid to have sex when one
or the other is drunk? isn't it difficult for courts to rule
in genuine cases now? why should the marriage certificate
make any difference? unless you believe that by entering
into marriage you somehow become the property of the other
person and normal reasonable standards don't apply...
>Consider a situation were a woman is slightly inebriated on her
>birthday, tells her spouse that she really loves him, encourages him to
>have sex with her, then leaves him a month later, and claims he raped
>her. Short of having a video recording, how can he defend himself? I
>suspect any video, at best, would still be ambiguous.
short of any video evidence (and from experience, even _with_
such evidence) SHE doesn't have a leg to stand on to begin
with. secondly, again, what's the difference to your girl-
or boyfriend doing this to you now?
>A key principle of justice is not to punish innocent people. The scope
>for litigious abuse, by removing the references to spouse, is
>immense, far more than the likely remedies that a genuinely injured
>spice would get. IMHO
we don't eliminate laws because there is potential of abuse.
we try to regulate that by other means. i can go and lie
about you bashing in my windshield, about you poisoning my
dog, about you cheating me in business -- i can lie until
the cows come home. the burden of proof lies on the accuser.
you seem to have an odd view of marriage -- do you really
think that people who are happily married think to themselves
"gee, i think i claim s/he raped me last month"? or is it
not rather those who are actually being abused now have no
recourse? you're so intent on protecting the innocent --
what about those who are being abused? are they not innocent
as well?
-alix
groovy feminazi
>In article <1993Jul14.1...@ucsu.colorado.edu> bur...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (groovy feminazi) writes:
>>
>>>There was a thread on this a while ago, and this position was generally
>>>agreed upon, as long as both partners voluntarily drank alcohol, and
>>>knew they were drinking alcohol, and were conscious.
>>
>>When exactly was this generally agreed upon, Charles?
>The thread was quite a while ago... months, perhaps a year.
>It turned into a discussion of "well if he gave her alcohol
>to take advantage of her..." rather than "if she and he got drunk
>and had sex..."
I apologize for being innucuous. I will be clearer. THe reason that
I said this was that it was not generally agreed on. I know this
because I was one of the people arguing about it
LAura
.
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <1993Jul6.2...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1993Jul11.1...@midway.uchicago.edu> <21qofs$i...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca> <1993Jul14.1...@ucsu.colorado.edu> <22f3us$l...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <22f3us$l...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jul14.1...@ucsu.colorado.edu> bur...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (groovy feminazi) writes:
>>
>>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>And I do find the law frightening. I
>do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
>it aloud is enough.
>Charles
What I find frightening is the systematic, routine, and casual way
that women are abused sexually, with the help of alcohol, in places
like fraternities [as described in another posting by a *former
fraternity member*]. Charles, I don't think you have a very accurate
idea about what's going on out there. You are so much more concerned
about a TINY fraction of men being exploited when the reality is that
substantial numbers of women have endured cruel and undeserved treatment
by men, and many more women LIVE IN FEAR, because we KNOW that our
chance to be hurt and exploited is always right there around the corner.
Call me a radical feminist if you like, but I find comfort in a law that
attempts to protect women from a common and *documented* problem. And I
don't much care that it bothers a few men. What do you have to be so
frightened of, it you're approaching sexual encounters in a decent and
ethical way?
Danielle
Temple University
Acquiescence
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>>And I do find the law frightening. I
>>do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
>>it aloud is enough.
>>Charles
>
>What I find frightening is the systematic, routine, and casual way
>that women are abused sexually, with the help of alcohol, in places
>like fraternities [as described in another posting by a *former
>fraternity member*].
What I find frightening is that girls, *knowing* what alcohol
does, and *knowing* what some frat parties are all about,
still have no qualms about going to the latest party at
the 'house.
I wonder, how many cases of fraternity rape actually involve
women who were kidnapped, dragged to the house, forced to drink
heavily, etc.?
> Charles, I don't think you have a very accurate
>idea about what's going on out there. You are so much more concerned
>about a TINY fraction of men being exploited when the reality is that
>substantial numbers of women have endured cruel and undeserved treatment
>by men, and many more women LIVE IN FEAR, because we KNOW that our
>chance to be hurt and exploited is always right there around the corner.
If these women are afraid, why do they take such obviously
stupid risks?
And why are frat guys generally the most popular on campus?
>Call me a radical feminist if you like, but I find comfort in a law that
>attempts to protect women from a common and *documented* problem.
Ahem. So, you'd approve of a law that said a woman's accusation
was enough to prove rape?
> And I
>don't much care that it bothers a few men.
Obviously.
Of course, you'll bitch and whine if we reciprocate that
feeling.
> What do you have to be so
>frightened of, it you're approaching sexual encounters in a decent and
>ethical way?
And a personal attack to round the message off. 4/10
--
all new thread elimination .sig: (make your own!)
The 21st century begins at 12:00:00 on 1/1/2001. The proper date for new
millenium parties is 31/12/2000, not 31/12/1999. Years are cardinal
numbers. 2000+1=2001. New, creative counting schemes need not apply.
Charles Savoie
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>>And I do find the law frightening. I
>>do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
>>it aloud is enough.
>>Charles
[men bad women good deleted]
>Call me a radical feminist if you like, but I find comfort in a law that
>attempts to protect women from a common and *documented* problem.
I am sorry, but if you are drunk, and got drunk willingly, and had
willingful (thus conscious) sex with someone, IMO a rape has not taken
place.
This law (and thus you) says that one has.
If two people get drunk, have willingful sex, and the woman decides
the next day that she regrets it, IMO a rape has not taken place.
This law (and thus you) says that one has.
The question of whether you are a radical feminist or not doesn't
really matter to me any more; I thought that mainstream feminists
were against this kind of law, but you and others have convinced
me that perhaps there are no radical or mainstream feminists...
Just feminists.
I disagree with this law, because I believe that people are responsible
for their actions, even when influenced by alcohol. The law agrees
with me in all cases but one: a woman's consent to sex.
>And I
>don't much care that it bothers a few men.
Would it make any difference if it bothered all men? I thought not.
>What do you have to be so
>frightened of, it you're approaching sexual encounters in a decent and
>ethical way?
Afraid of being thrown in jail for 15 years for rape when all I did
is get drunk with my girlfriend and have willing sex?
>Danielle
>Temple University
Greg Otts
>In article <16C12A4B...@vm.temple.edu> ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>>In article <22f3us$l...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>>Call me a radical feminist if you like, but I find comfort in a law that
>>attempts to protect women from a common and *documented* problem.
>
>I am sorry, but if you are drunk, and got drunk willingly, and had
>willingful (thus conscious) sex with someone, IMO a rape has not taken
>place.
>
>This law (and thus you) says that one has.
>
>If two people get drunk, have willingful sex, and the woman decides
>the next day that she regrets it, IMO a rape has not taken place.
>
>This law (and thus you) says that one has.
The man in you example might not have slept with the woman had
he been sober because . . .
1. He doesn't want to risk having a baby by her.
2. He doesn't like her personality.
3. He's not attracted to her.
4. She might have a sexually-transmitted desease.
5. He already has a committed relationship.
The man would similarly be able to have rape charges against the
woman because the Ohio laws are gender neutral. Thus it is possible
(though probably unlikely) that both can be convicted of raping each
other!
>
>>Danielle
>>Temple University
>
>Charles
- Greg Otts
Rolfe G. Petschek
>In article <22hvr7$j...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> rpet...@mrg.CWRU.EDU (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>> The laws of the state
>>of Ohio related to sexual conduct with drunks include
>>
>>2907.02 Rape; evidence; marriage or cohabitation not defenses to rape
>>charges
>>(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>living separate and apart from the offender, when either of the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>following apply
>> (a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender
>>substantially impairs the other person's judgement or control by
>>administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person,
>>surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
>
>Somehow getting your spouse drunk by force or deception etc to
>have sex with them is imo at least as heinous as doing same to a
>non-spouse.
>
>What's the law in Ohio on spousal rape in general?
2907.01 Definitions
(L) "Spouse" means a person married to an offender at the time of an
alleged offense, except that such person shall not be considered the
spouse when any of the following apply:
(1) When the parties have entered into a written separation agreement
authorized by section 3103.06 of the Revised Code;
(2) During the pendency of an action between the parties for annulment,
divorce, dissolution of marriage, or alimony;
(3) In the case of an action for alimony, after the effective date of
the judgement for alimony.
2907.02 Rape; evidence; marriage or cohabitation not defenses to rape
charges
(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not
the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is
living separate and apart from the offender, when either of the
following apply
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender
substantially impairs the other person's judgement or control by
administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person,
surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or
not the offender knows the age of such person.
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the
offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat
of force.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, an aggravated
felony of the first degree. If the offender under division (A) (1)(b)
of this section purposely compels the victim to submit by force or
threat of force, whoever violates division (A)(1)(b) of this section
shall be imprisoned for life.
(C) A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in
prosecutions under this section.
(D) Evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity,
opinion evidence of the victim's sexual activity and reputation
evidence of the victim's sexual activity shall not be admitted under
this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen,
pregnancy, or disease, or the victim's past sexual activity with the
offender, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence
is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or
prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
Evidence of specific instances of the defendant's sexual
activity, opinion evidence of the defendant's sexual activity and
reputation evidence of the defendant's sexual activity shall not be
admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of
semen, pregnancy, or disease, the defendant's past sexual activity with
the victim, or is admissible against the defendant under section
2945.59 of the Revised Code, and only to the extent that the court finds
that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that
its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative
value.
(E) Prior to taking testimony or receiving evidence of any sexual
activity of the victim or the defendant in a proceeding under this
section, the curt shall resolve the admissibility of the proposed
evidence in a hearing in chambers, which shall be held at or before
preliminary hearing and not less than three days before trial, or for
good cause shown during the trial.
(F) Upon approval by the court, the victim may be represented by counsel
in any hearing in chambers or other proceeding to resolve the
admissibility of evidence. If the victim is indigent or otherwise
unable to obtain the services of counsel, the court may, upon request,
appoint counsel to represent the victim without cost to the victim.
(G) It is not a defense to a charge under division (A)(2) of this
section that the offender and the victim were married or were cohabiting
at the time of the commission of the offense.
The spousal rape law 2907.02(G) is rather new (1987, I believe) however
These laws would e.g. allow me to make my wife's coffee with vodka instead of
water for the purpose of having sex with her (as, in fact none of the
exceptions of 2907.01(L) apply to my marriage.) I agree that this would be
a disgusting thing for me to do. However I am not sure that it should
be illegal - there are too many situations which I think should be legal
and are not disgusting enough to warrant punishment by long prison terms
which are hard to distinguish from this with reasonably concise
laws. (Spouses have a fight about sex, one 'makes up', bringing home two
bottles of champagne, the other gets tipsy and says 'I'm getting drunk and
should stop', the other says not at all dear, have another few glasses.
Finally 'the other' is carried up stairs and they have sex while the
other is semi-conscious. Bad, yes. Needs a criminal lawyer? Well, I
think not.) In any case I doubt that there is that much effect - in the 6 or
so years that 2907.02(G) has been in force there has been I think still
1 (one) case brought against a spouse (husband) who qualified as a spouse
under 2907.01(L). I don't know the resolution of that case, but I think
that it did not result in a prison sentence. However the 2907.01(L)
exceptions are important.
I believe that excepting intoxication and other impairment from spousal
rape laws is, where there are spousal rape laws, rather common. I will
agree that there is the possibility of writing such a law which would
not be too intrusive into marital relations, the reason usually cited
for this exception.
I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice, if you take it as such
you are a blithering idiot. Legal advice should be obtained directly
from a professional.
Benjamin Renaud
|What I find frightening is the systematic, routine, and casual way
|that women are abused sexually, with the help of alcohol, in places
|like fraternities [as described in another posting by a *former
|fraternity member*].
They take the glass. They drink the stuff. They know what alcohol will
do to their ability to make judgements they won't later regret. Hell,
no one drags them into the fraternities in the first place. Gee, I am
a guy, and I hardly ever go to fraternities parties. Don't like them.
What I find frightening is people unwilligness to assume the
responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
|Charles, I don't think you have a very accurate
|idea about what's going on out there. You are so much more concerned
|about a TINY fraction of men being exploited when the reality is that
|substantial numbers of women have endured cruel and undeserved treatment
|by men, and many more women LIVE IN FEAR, because we KNOW that our
|chance to be hurt and exploited is always right there around the corner.
If you could be a little more specific, it would help. I look at the
world, and somehow I don't find that this is true.
|Call me a radical feminist if you like, but I find comfort in a law that
|attempts to protect women from a common and *documented* problem. And I
|don't much care that it bothers a few men. What do you have to be so
|frightened of, it you're approaching sexual encounters in a decent and
|ethical way?
Because I think the problem is that you think that only men might be
dishonest. With laws which always lower standards for the burden of
proof in cases of rape or ever expanding definitions of what rape,
women get more and more at an advantage and might just decide to ruin
someone's life (someone who did nothing unethical) just because they
got tipsy and later regretted it.
|Danielle
|Temple University
Benjamin Renaud
benj...@ai.mit.edu
Acquiescence
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>>And I do find the law frightening. I
>>do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
>>it aloud is enough.
>>Charles
>
>that women are abused sexually, with the help of alcohol, in places
>like fraternities [as described in another posting by a *former
>fraternity member*\.
What I find frightening is that girls, *knowing* what alcohol
does, and *knowing* what some frat parties are all about,
still have no qualms about going to the latest party at
the 'house.
Most of them are downright eager. And are you claiming that
there aren't a whole lot of people who need to drink/do drugs
before having sex? Seems to me that sex and drugs (including
alc.) are often linked.
I wonder, how many cases of fraternity rape actually involve
women who were kidnapped, dragged to the house, forced to drink
heavily, etc.?
> Charles, I don't think you have a very accurate
>idea about what's going on out there. You are so much more concerned
>about a TINY fraction of men being exploited when the reality is that
>substantial numbers of women have endured cruel and undeserved treatment
>by men, and many more women LIVE IN FEAR, because we KNOW that our
>chance to be hurt and exploited is always right there around the corner.
If these women are afraid, why do they take such obviously
stupid risks?
And why are frat guys generally the most popular on campus?
>Call me a radical feminist if you like, but I find comfort in a law that
>attempts to protect women from a common and *documented* problem.
Ahem. So, you'd approve of a law that said a woman's accusation
was enough to prove rape?
> And I
>don't much care that it bothers a few men.
Obviously.
Of course, you'll bitch and whine if we reciprocate that
feeling.
> What do you have to be so
>frightened of, it you're approaching sexual encounters in a decent and
>ethical way?
And a personal attack to round the message off. 4/10
[reposted--message was garbled/undelivered]
James P. Dusek
>by men, and many more women LIVE IN FEAR, because we KNOW that our
>chance to be hurt and exploited is always right there around the corner.
The answers simple Danielle, 230 grains of lead are a great
equalizer. You shouldn't have to fear corners, and if you do takeing
self defence with firearms courses and getting yourself armed. The first
step in taking the courses BEFORE carrying the weapon.
When people use firearms for self defence, they have a better
chance avoiding injury than people who submit.
James Dusek
Mark Evans
: The man in you example might not have slept with the woman had
: he been sober because . . .
: 1. He doesn't want to risk having a baby by her.
: 2. He doesn't like her personality.
: 3. He's not attracted to her.
: 4. She might have a sexually-transmitted desease.
: 5. He already has a committed relationship.
: The man would similarly be able to have rape charges against the
: woman because the Ohio laws are gender neutral. Thus it is possible
: (though probably unlikely) that both can be convicted of raping each
: other!
The law might be written as gender neutral, however would it actually be
applied as gender neutral?
Considering common attitudes to rape, I see this as unlikely.
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <1993Jul13.1...@aston.ac.uk> <223kas$o...@paperboy.osf.org> <22ih25$l...@st-james.comp.vuw.ac.nz>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <22ih25$l...@st-james.comp.vuw.ac.nz>
Gavin....@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower) writes:
>
>In article <22i61h$e...@gateway.rosedale.org> <aal...@rosedale.org> writes:
>>
>No partner should force the other to have sex with them, but it is a
>little stupid to give lawyers the chance to make money and ruin a
>couples marriage out of encouraging irritated spouses to indulge in
>litigation.
>The spouse bit is *very* important to leave in! Do you really wish
>that couples be afraid to have sex when one, or other, is drunk, for
>fear of potential litigation? It is difficult for courts to rule in
>genuine cases, without additional vexatious litigation!
>A key principle of justice is not to punish innocent people. The scope
>for litigious abuse, by removing the references to spouse, is
>immense, far more than the likely remedies that a genuinely injured
>spice would get. IMHO
>Gavin
You have got to be kidding. Do you think people take each other to court
just because they CAN?! Do you really imagine that women are so
frivolous? Do you think a woman would go through the agony of
accusing someone of rape [and it *is* agonizing for the accuser], just
because she was peeved at her ex-husband? Welcome to the real world.
Wake up. What kind of person thinks rape is a matter of "vexatious
litigation"? Ask ANY woman who has been sexually assaulted, by her
husband or anyone else, and she'll clear this matter right up for you.
Nobody consents to be raped, implied or otherwise. Force is force,
whether it comes from someone you marry or a stranger.
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C12A4B...@vm.temple.edu> <22k3bi$r...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <22k3bi$r...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>In article <16C12A4B...@vm.temple.edu> ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>>In article <22f3us$l...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>>>And I do find the law frightening. I
>>>do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
>>>it aloud is enough.
>I am sorry, but if you are drunk, and got drunk willingly, and had
>willingful (thus conscious) sex with someone, IMO a rape has not taken
>place.
>I disagree with this law, because I believe that people are responsible
>for their actions, even when influenced by alcohol. The law agrees
>with me in all cases but one: a woman's consent to sex.
>Afraid of being thrown in jail for 15 years for rape when all I did
>is get drunk with my girlfriend and have willing sex?
Charles, you are an alarmist and full of it. If a woman *willingly* has
sex with a man, then she won't claim she was raped, whether she was drunk
or otherwise, and there won't be a case, and *you* won't have anything to be
"afraid" of. If you're worried about your girlfriend accusing you of raping
her after the two of you have consensual sex, then maybe you should get a new
girlfriend. You have an unpleasant idea about women, if you think we're all
out here waiting to accuse some man of rape at every opportunity.
Wake up. Laws like the one you're so terrified of are there to protect real
people, real victims, and all your fretting has very little to do with the
reality of the world out here.
Danielle
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C12A4B...@vm.temple.edu> <22k2bj$4...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <22k2bj$4...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Acquiescence) writes:
>
>In article <16C12A4B...@vm.temple.edu> ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>>>And I do find the law frightening. I
>>>do not need to make it look/sound any worse; simply reading
>>>it aloud is enough.
>>>Charles
> What I find frightening is that girls, *knowing* what alcohol
> does, and *knowing* what some frat parties are all about,
> still have no qualms about going to the latest party at
> the 'house.
Look, just because a woman goes to a party and drinks doesn't mean she
expects or deserves to be raped. You'd think in a supposedly civilized
society like ours a woman could reasonabley assume that a party is safe.
The fact that it's not always safe is sad, but it doesn't mean that women
should lock themselves away and refuse to participate in life. Here's an
original idea. Why not prevent or punish that illegal behavior [rape] instead
of suggesting that women, who aren't doing anything wrong, stay away from
parties. Nah, that makes too much sense. And it forces men to be responsi-
ble for what *they* do instead of making women responsible for what men do.
> I wonder, how many cases of fraternity rape actually involve
> women who were kidnapped, dragged to the house, forced to drink
> heavily, etc.?
You are kidding of course. So rape only occurs when women are kidnapped,
etc? Get serious.
> Ahem. So, you'd approve of a law that said a woman's accusation
is adequate for a charge of rape.
Let's see. Maybe I missed a line in my previous posting, but I don't recall
writing that. If you can't effectivley argue with what I say, then why not
just make up something, attribute it to me, and then argue against that. Much
easier. Maybe you live in a parallel universe, but in the courts in this one,
a woman's accusation is NO WHERE CLOSE to enough. In fact, any woman who
dares to accuse a man of rape can expect to be treated like a criminal
herself. No, if she wants the charge to stick, she better have some damn
good evidence and she herself better be a saint. As it should be, of course,
so we can protect all those innocent men who are just doing what comes
naturally.
Danielle
James Buster
>Charles, you are an alarmist and full of it. If a woman *willingly* has
>sex with a man, then she won't claim she was raped, whether she was drunk
>or otherwise, and there won't be a case, and *you* won't have anything to be
>"afraid" of.
Fast-track DAs are everything to be afraid of. Who says that the woman
involved has to be the one to cry "rape"? The woman's friends might
rat on him, it's for her own good, after all. And whether or not he is
*convicted* isn't necessarily relevant. Just the mere accusation could
destroy him and their relationship.
>Wake up. Laws like the one you're so terrified of are there to protect real
>people, real victims, and all your fretting has very little to do with the
>reality of the world out here.
It's not the real victims we are worried about. If you cry "rape", you
get a lot of sympathy. People feel sorry for you, and want to help you.
Some people *really like* that kind of attention. Others are just plain
mean and abusive. It's those kind of people I worry about, and it's not
necessarily possible to tell beforehand whether or not your sexual partner
is like this.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
Aaron Hoffmeyer
>>I disagree with this law, because I believe that people are responsible
>>for their actions, even when influenced by alcohol. The law agrees
>>with me in all cases but one: a woman's consent to sex.
>>Afraid of being thrown in jail for 15 years for rape when all I did
>>is get drunk with my girlfriend and have willing sex?
>
>Charles, you are an alarmist and full of it. If a woman *willingly* has
>sex with a man, then she won't claim she was raped, whether she was drunk
>or otherwise, and there won't be a case, and *you* won't have anything to be
>"afraid" of. If you're worried about your girlfriend accusing you of raping
>her after the two of you have consensual sex, then maybe you should get a new
>girlfriend. You have an unpleasant idea about women, if you think we're all
>out here waiting to accuse some man of rape at every opportunity.
>
>Wake up. Laws like the one you're so terrified of are there to protect real
>people, real victims, and all your fretting has very little to do with the
>reality of the world out here.
Several years ago, my first divorce attorney told me about another case
he was handling at the time.
Two college students, both going to the same school and majoring in
computer science, moved in together after dating for some months. They
had similar schedules, but not exactly the same. One day, the woman
skipped her last class and came home from school to find her
boyfriend/housemate in bed with the next door neighbor -- another
college student. She was livid, went into a screaming fit and left.
He did not hear from her for days....
Several days later she called him up. She told him she had gone back
to her parents' home for a few days to think. He apologized and told
her he didn't want to end their relationship. After a few hours of
reconciliation, she went to their apartment. They ended up in bed.
In the middle of the night, he awoke to the someone pounding at the
door. His friend/housemate was not there. When he opened the door,
the police arrested him for rape.
After he had fallen asleep, this woman went to the police and accused
him of rape.
So, Danielle, should this man get a new girlfriend when he gets out of
prison?
--
Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
T...@CBNEA.ATT.COM
BTW, after a trial, this man was acquitted. It only cost him about
$5,000 and his education for a while. Of course, he won't be
stigmatized by the fact that he was once tried for rape.....
Aaron Hoffmeyer
>Look, just because a woman goes to a party and drinks doesn't mean she
>expects or deserves to be raped. You'd think in a supposedly civilized
>society like ours a woman could reasonabley assume that a party is safe.
>The fact that it's not always safe is sad, but it doesn't mean that women
>should lock themselves away and refuse to participate in life. Here's an
>original idea. Why not prevent or punish that illegal behavior [rape] instead
>of suggesting that women, who aren't doing anything wrong, stay away from
>parties. Nah, that makes too much sense. And it forces men to be responsi-
>ble for what *they* do instead of making women responsible for what men do.
>> Ahem. So, you'd approve of a law that said a woman's accusation
> is adequate for a charge of rape.
>Let's see. Maybe I missed a line in my previous posting, but I don't recall
>writing that. If you can't effectivley argue with what I say, then why not
>just make up something, attribute it to me, and then argue against that. Much
>easier. Maybe you live in a parallel universe, but in the courts in this one,
>a woman's accusation is NO WHERE CLOSE to enough. In fact, any woman who
>dares to accuse a man of rape can expect to be treated like a criminal
>herself. No, if she wants the charge to stick, she better have some damn
>good evidence and she herself better be a saint. As it should be, of course,
>so we can protect all those innocent men who are just doing what comes
>naturally.
Danielle, since everyone is incorrectly interpretting what you are saying,
could you answer a few questions with a simple Yes or No response so that
we can get a better handle on what you do believe:
* Is there such a thing as implied consent?
* Do you believe any person has ever been convicted or rape based
solely on evidence of intercourse with NO evidence of whether or
not there was consent?
* Do you think any men have ever been executed for rape in this century
in the United States? Any women?
* If a woman has sex with a man while they are both inebriated, but
never says anything during the act, then wakes up the next day and
recognizes that she never overtly consented to the act, was she
raped? Could she claim that she was?
* Have any women ever admitted that they had made up the rape
allegations after an innocent man has served 5 years in prison?
10 years? 15 years? Died in prison?
* Can consent be withdrawn after the act?
* Is a woman's word of consent evidence of that consent? Is it legal
evidence if she denies it in court?
* Does our society, even our very biology, dictate that men are the
instigators in sexual relationships and that women have the
passive role of being entertained by such instigators? Could this
be summarized by saying the man's role is to state:
"I want to have sex with you."
while the woman's role is to sit in judgement and make the final
decision by stating:
"We will|won't have sex."
* Are these statements always made by both parties this directly and
matter of factly?
* Is there always evidence that these statements were made?
* Is it possible that men might fear being wrongfully accused of rape
for any good reason?
Dave Fuller
: Maybe you live in a parallel universe, but in the courts in this one,
: a woman's accusation is NO WHERE CLOSE to enough. In fact, any woman who
: dares to accuse a man of rape can expect to be treated like a criminal
: herself. No, if she wants the charge to stick, she better have some damn
: good evidence and she herself better be a saint. As it should be, of course,
: so we can protect all those innocent men who are just doing what comes
: naturally.
I have a tough time deciding where sarcasm, cynicism, and truth exist in
this response. I will assume that it is all honest feelings with a twist of
sarcasm in it.
The part about a woman being a saint I would have to agree with. It does
seem as if the woman is questioned about her past which has absolutely
nothing to do with the charge at hand. I see no reason for a woman to have
to justify anything that happened outside of the actual rape accusation.
However, I don't see a problem with badgering the person doing the accusing,
be it a male or a female. If I were on a jury, I would not send a person
to jail unless I were absolutely sure of their guilt. I would also expect
the same treatment. Most rapes aren't witnessed, so you have a problem. If
there wasn't a struggle that left bruises/cuts/injuries, then all you have
is 1 person's word against another. Nobody else heard anybody say "no". It
is a double-edged sword. The woman would be smart to consent so that further
harm doesn't happen, BUT consent means no physical evidence of force. I
would LIKE to believe the rape victim, but I honestly couldn't convict
a person based purely that. The natural reaction is to make the criminal
pay, and to believe that the rape victim isn't lying. People like to serve
justice on others. But, I wouldn't let that emotional drive supply me with
my decision . . . . I would base it purely on the facts. Not the facts that
the rape victim knows, but the facts that I know. It may very well be a fact
that the rape occurred, but if I don't see facts that display that to me,
it would be difficult for me to agree that it actually happened.
By the way, I don't have the answer to this problem. Maybe if more women
carried weapons, it would put more fear into rapists. I realize that it
isn't the woman's responsibilty to defend against rape . . . it just shouldn't
happen in the first place. That is nice thinking, but it is wrong. A person
is responsible for not putting themself at risk. If I walked through the
projects at night with nothing but shorts on and I had so much cash in my
arms that I could barely see . . . . well, I think I know what would happen
on that one. They didn't have the right to take my money, but I sure had
it coming. I should have known better.
If you can think of a perfect society, or a flawless justice system, then
let me know about it - because I haven't been able to think of one yet.
--
Dave Fuller
dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
Greg Otts
I agree that enforcement would be biased by the "men bad/women good"
mental that pervades society. (Note that I used "though probably unlikely".)
I personally think that every adult who drinks/does drugs of their own
free will is responsible for their own sexual behavior provided that they
are conscious enough to say "yes" or "no". The law, if ENFORCED in a
gender neutral way, would lead to strange results such as mutual "rape".
It only protects women because I suspect most people (feminists included)
automatically assign guilt in sexual matter to big, bad men.
- Greg Otts
Greg Otts
It really doesn't matter what Charles' thinks about women: a man - even a
drunk woman - can't technically have consensual sex in Ohio. Any woman (or man
for that matter) having sex with a drunk man (or woman) is a rapist according
to the Ohio laws. It really doesn't matter if the intoxicated person said "yes"
because the law says it is rape to have sex with an intoxicated person. It is
quite analogous to statutory rape: a man or a woman can't use the child's "yes"
as a way to avoid conviction.
What you said to Charles - that he doesn't have to worry if his girl-
friend says yes - is legally equivalent to the advice that a man who sleeps with
a 15 year old girl doesn't have to worry if the girl says "yes". Joey Benafuco
(sp?) probably wishes that were true. :) The legal principle is the same: sex
with a drunk person is rape; sex with an under age person is statutory rape.
There is no safe way for a man or a woman to have sex with either a 15 year old
or a drunk person in Ohio.
>
>Danielle
- Greg Otts
David Green
>
> However, I don't see a problem with badgering the person doing the accusing,
>be it a male or a female. If I were on a jury, I would not send a person
>to jail unless I were absolutely sure of their guilt. I would also expect
>the same treatment. Most rapes aren't witnessed, so you have a problem. If
>there wasn't a struggle that left bruises/cuts/injuries, then all you have
>is 1 person's word against another. Nobody else heard anybody say "no". It
>is a double-edged sword. The woman would be smart to consent so that further
>harm doesn't happen, BUT consent means no physical evidence of force. I
>would LIKE to believe the rape victim, but I honestly couldn't convict
>a person based purely that.
I would just like to make a comment here on the underlined
sentence. It seems as if you believe that women who resist an attacker are
more likely to be injured than women who don't. That makes sense, but
unfortunately it's also wrong.
I help teach a self defence class for women here at the University
of Waterloo, and one thing that was discovered when this course was being
designed was that the level of injury recieved goes down after a woman
begins to resist. This is an interesting fact, because it goes against
most advice that people hear. I don't want to start lecturing, it's just
that this common mistake really annoys me.
>
> By the way, I don't have the answer to this problem. Maybe if more women
>carried weapons, it would put more fear into rapists. I realize that it
>isn't the woman's responsibilty to defend against rape . . . it just shouldn't
>happen in the first place. That is nice thinking, but it is wrong. A person
>is responsible for not putting themself at risk. If I walked through the
>projects at night with nothing but shorts on and I had so much cash in my
>arms that I could barely see . . . . well, I think I know what would happen
>on that one. They didn't have the right to take my money, but I sure had
>it coming. I should have known better.
>
I think what would work is if more women realized that it is
POSSIBLE to resist an attacker successfully, wether the woman has a weapon
or not. Too many people in our society seem to believe that any man can
beat any woman at any time, and that's just not true. This message come
from all sides - books, TV, movies, even feminists. That last really
bothers me. The people who used to tell women what the CAN do seem to have
turned arround and are now telling women what they CAN'T do (as evidenced
by the repeated messages that "women are victims". This whole thing seems
based on the assumption that women can't hold their own in a
confrontation. But I'm starting to lecture again.)
> If you can think of a perfect society, or a flawless justice system, then
>let me know about it - because I haven't been able to think of one yet.
>
>--
>Dave Fuller
>dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
DAVE GREEN
P.S. Anyone who thinks I don't know what I'm talking about can come and
see the bruises I've got from last night's graduation exercise. My god,
those women beat the snot out of me!
Charles Savoie
Hello Danielle, and thank you for replying to my post.
In article <16C13D6C...@vm.temple.edu> ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>In article <22k3bi$r...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>>I am sorry, but if you are drunk, and got drunk willingly, and had
>>willingful (thus conscious) sex with someone, IMO a rape has not taken
>>place.
I am curious; do you agree with the above statement? If you do, then
you should not be accusing me of being alarmist, since this is
exactly what the law being discussed calls rape.
>>I disagree with this law, because I believe that people are responsible
>>for their actions, even when influenced by alcohol. The law agrees
>>with me in all cases but one: a woman's consent to sex.
>>Afraid of being thrown in jail for 15 years for rape when all I did
>>is get drunk with my girlfriend and have willing sex?
>
>Charles, you are an alarmist and full of it. If a woman *willingly* has
>sex with a man, then she won't claim she was raped, whether she was drunk
>or otherwise,
All women? I mean, I can believe that most women would not do this;
but unfortunately I also believe that *some* women will direct the
anger they have toward having had sex while drunk, toward the man
they had sex with; and since this law would render her consent to
sex "inadmissible" since she was drunk, she would have quite a
case indeed. The fact that this *could* happen is what is alarming,
not that it *would* happen in every case.
>and there won't be a case, and *you* won't have anything to be
>"afraid" of.
See above.
>If you're worried about your girlfriend accusing you of raping
>her after the two of you have consensual sex, then maybe you should get a new
>girlfriend.
In general, I think this is good advice. But say if I wasn't worried
about it, but knew that if she did accuse me she would win and
I would go jail. Puts a new light on things, no?
>You have an unpleasant idea about women, if you think we're all
>out here waiting to accuse some man of rape at every opportunity.
Oh, never! I'm truly sorry if I gave that impression. You see, all
I'm asking is that if, perchance, some terrible woman did such a
thing, that the law would allow her consent to the sex to be
admissible in the trial... Do you think this is too much to ask?
>Wake up. Laws like the one you're so terrified of are there to protect real
>people, real victims, and all your fretting has very little to do with the
>reality of the world out here.
Well, unfortunately, this particular law does not protect this victim:
one who has consensual, willing sex with a woman while she (or both
of them) are drunk (and got drunk of their own free will and consent).
>Danielle
Have a nice day,
Charles
PS: It's hard to be mean when listening to B-52's.
Joseph A. Nardelli
Condsidering that in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, how can someone be convicted of this
sort of rape. Given that there are usually no observers, and that
by the time a physical exam is started most of the physical evidence
is gone, there is no reliable evidence to indicate that sex actually
occurred. I don't think many juries are going to accept the testimony
of someone who is too intoxicated to decide whether or not they should
have sex.
Joe Nardelli
nardelli.eng.umd.edu
Charles Savoie
>In article <22k2bj$4...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
>rsro...@wam.umd.edu (Acquiescence) writes:
>> I wonder, how many cases of fraternity rape actually involve
>> women who were kidnapped, dragged to the house, forced to drink
>> heavily, etc.?
>You are kidding of course. So rape only occurs when women are kidnapped,
>etc? Get serious.
Hello again Danielle. The point was that the fact these women go
to the party willingly and expect to get drunk willingly and
sometimes want afterwards to have sex willingly makes the law in
question (that in a rape case, any consent given while drunk
cannot be used as a defence) look even more ridiculous.
>> Ahem. So, you'd approve of a law that said a woman's accusation
> is adequate for a charge of rape.
>Let's see. Maybe I missed a line in my previous posting, but I don't recall
>writing that.
But if you support this law, you are supporting *exactly* that. A
woman's accusation *would* be enough to convict if she could
prove a) she was drunk, and b) he had sex with her. No amount
of consent she could have given at the time would diminish her
case under this law. Thus, her accusation would be enough
to put him behind bars, period.
[...]
>No, if she wants the charge to stick, she better have some damn
>good evidence and she herself better be a saint. As it should be, of course,
>so we can protect all those innocent men who are just doing what comes
>naturally.
Do I detect a certain hatred of men here? Nahh... couldn't be.
I'm sorry I even mentioned it, it simply couldn't be true.
>Danielle
Charles
Charles Savoie
[...]
>Danielle, since everyone is incorrectly interpretting what you are saying,
>could you answer a few questions with a simple Yes or No response so that
>we can get a better handle on what you do believe:
Although these questions are important and I too am interested in the
response, most do not seem relevant to the issue at hand, which
I would really like to resolve first. The main relevant questions
are:
[...]
> * If a woman has sex with a man while they are both inebriated, but
> never says anything during the act, then wakes up the next day and
> recognizes that she never overtly consented to the act, was she
> raped? Could she claim that she was?
[...]
> * Can consent be withdrawn after the act?
>
> * Is a woman's word of consent evidence of that consent? Is it legal
> evidence if she denies it in court?
[...]
> * Is it possible that men might fear being wrongfully accused of rape
> for any good reason?
My answers (if anyone cares): * no; yes but not truthfully
* no
* yes; yes to a degree?
* YES, not only possible, but confirmed.
Charles Savoie
>> never says anything during the act, then wakes up the next day and
>> recognizes that she never overtly consented to the act, was she
>> raped? Could she claim that she was?
Reading this again, I'd have to change my answer from "no" to
"it depends." If the woman is vegetative, i.e. not having sex
but being used for sex, and not saying anything, I would pretty
much have to call it rape. If she *is* having sex, tho, that
is, actually "helping" (for lack of a better word), then no,
it isn't rape, it's two people having sex.
This all assumes that both parties got drunk willingly of course.
Duane Hentrich
|>
|> [alt.feminism added back to the Newgroups line]
|>
|> ba...@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
|> >fart...@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|>
|> >|> I think we should add alt.conspiracy to that newsgroup list.
|>
|> >No. Not by any means. I think he's saying more that of the people who
|> >arre powerful in this political system, the ones we see, e.g. Senators,
|> >candidates..., are a subset, and that the ones we see might not be the
|> >most powerful.
|>
|> >I know if I were powerful I would spend some of it to keep me out of the
|> >media circus.
|>
|> We haven't heard much about Bechtel lately...
You are, of course, correct. I lost track of John Bechtel when I
left GMI. I wonder why you bring him up. Do you know him?
--
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ba...@Tymnet.Com
We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence.
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Gavin Flower
admit. There are severe problems trying to get the perpetrators
brought to justice and appropriately convicted. Most people, seem to
find taking court action too emotionally threatening to even get to
court. It appears that it is very difficult to get convictions in
genuine cases. Sexual abuse can have lasting, and very severe impact
on people. Most survivors of sexual abuse "simply" want to rebuild
their lives, and avoid becoming perpetrators themselves - based on my
reading of alt.sexual.abuse.recovery for the last two years. A lot of
people that are involved in helping people who have, or still are,
suffering from sexual abuse, are greatly motivated to do all in their
power to prevent further abuse, and to punish perpetrators. I've had
extensive correspondence with survivors over the last 2 years. I've
also read other groups.
Essentially, it fills me with horror too.
However, sometimes accusations of sexual abuse are used purely as ploys
in legal proceedings. When a man is accused of sexual abuse, a lot of
people act as if he is automatically guilty. These two sentences seem
to particularly apply in disputed custody cases.
Sometimes a woman genuinely perceives herself as being severely
sexually abused, but there is no objective evidence. These will
usually fail in court. Sometimes there is sexual abuse, to the extent
the man was insufficiently sensitive to the woman's feelings, but the
man never intended any abuse, and only became aware of her claims
later. In this latter situation, legal action is inappropriate,
counselling would seem best - the couple may reconcile, or may still
split.
I personally, would like to see more effort put into prevention. I
think education on sexuality should be widespread. I would like to see
women, and men, who suspect that they are subject to sexual abuse, to
seek counselling at an early stage, with later involvement of their
partners - if appropiate.
I feel that it is too easy for people to get married. I think that
every couple planning to get married should go through a thorough
course covering various aspects of marriage, and it should be expected
that a lot of couples will then decide not to marry. I think it
especially important that people marrying for a second, or subsequent
time, go through such a course. I want to remarry, in some areas I'm
very aware of the issues and have had a lot of valuable insights, in
other areas, especially ones I've never considered, I could learn a
lot - either way, I don't wish to be complacent.
A marriage certificate, is only as good as the preparation the couple
put into the marriage, and their commitment, in itself, it is not
magic.
In article <22jubi$n...@gateway.rosedale.org> <aal...@rosedale.org> writes:
>
>Gavin....@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Gavin Flower) writes:
>
>>First I should say that, even in a happily married situation, both
>>partners should be considerate of each other, and be aware that
>>sometimes the other wants at most some affection, even when both are
>>naked in the same bed. However, as far as anyone else is concerned,
>>it is reasonable to assume an implied consent that both partners are
>>in a relationship where the act of sexual intercourse is acceptable to
>>both, *unless* there is evidence to the contrary - the reverse is
>>appropiate when not married (couples living together..., treat as
>>married?).
>
> so what evidence to the contrary would you accept? it appears
> froma recent court ruling that not even videotape of your
> spouse raping you is good enough evidence.
I'm not a judge, their job is very difficult.
> i'd had it with
> this BS of the marriage certificate giving anyone an excuse
> to do things to one's spouse one would not dare do to another
> person. yes, indeed, people should be considerate of each
> other. clearly the law does not need to be, and is indeed
> not written for the considerate person, but for those who do
> abuse their partner.
Unfortunately, the law is often abused in both directions.
If I was married, I would not dare have sex with another women, does
that mean I shouldn't have sex with my wife? I know you did not mean
it this literally, but there are grey areas.
>
>>No partner should force the other to have sex with them, but it is a
>>little stupid to give lawyers the chance to make money and ruin a
>>couples marriage out of encouraging irritated spouses to indulge in
>>litigation. The situation should either be resolved by mediation, or
>>the two should split and live separately - better still would be
>>education into the nature of sexuality, the differences between the
>>genders, and encourage them to respect each other.
>
> leap of logic. people ruin their own marriages; they don't
> need lawyers for that.
True, but encouraging confrontation, rather than conflict resolution,
can make things much worse. Effective counselling is more likely to
result in the couple getting back together, or at least splitting more
amicably - either way it is cheaper, both financially and in emotional
terms.
> if somebody goes to the effort of
> filing charges against somebody else, the marriage is in
> deep trouble. people are usually a little further along than
> merely "irritated". how you solve the problem of people not
> understanding each other is an entirely different problem
> from writing the law so that certain actions, which we con-
> sider to be wrong, are punishable _if needed_.
If both parties are at fault, and only one files charges and "wins" is
it good that the other party is punished? Would it be any better if
both parties were punished? And oh, what about their children, both
during the trial, and after. If abuse ceases by the separation, is
anything to be gained by imprisonment? Will imprisonment improve the
non custodial parent's ability to pay maintenance? Will it improve
their ability or willingness to help in raising the children? Will it
improve their ability to have a mutually satisfying relationship
later? Obviously, counselling will not work in all situations, but
how effective is punishment. Not to mention the costs to both
parties, and the taxpayer.
>>The spouse bit is *very* important to leave in! Do you really wish
>>that couples be afraid to have sex when one, or other, is drunk, for
>>fear of potential litigation? It is difficult for courts to rule in
>>genuine cases, without additional vexatious litigation!
>
> pray tell, shouldn't you then argue for the abolishment of
> this law alltogether? after all, whether married or not,
> do you really wish couples to be afraid to have sex when one
> or the other is drunk? isn't it difficult for courts to rule
> in genuine cases now? why should the marriage certificate
> make any difference? unless you believe that by entering
> into marriage you somehow become the property of the other
> person and normal reasonable standards don't apply...
There are good arguments for keeping sex to within marriage. I
suspect that it would have been better for me to have kept to that
ideal myself, the first time. It is working very successfully for me
now.
Well if a couple are deeply in love, they *do* become the property of
each other, mind, heart, and body. Entering into marriage shouldn't
change this aspect. The appropiate guiding principle is to maintain
and enhance mutual self-respect.
[It is 1 am, I'm probably missing the point a bit. Can't be bothered
right now to be as rigorous as I could be - just want to answer this
post and get some sleep.]
>>Consider a situation were a woman is slightly inebriated on her
>>birthday, tells her spouse that she really loves him, encourages him to
>>have sex with her, then leaves him a month later, and claims he raped
>>her. Short of having a video recording, how can he defend himself? I
>>suspect any video, at best, would still be ambiguous.
>
> short of any video evidence (and from experience, even _with_
> such evidence) SHE doesn't have a leg to stand on to begin
> with. secondly, again, what's the difference to your girl-
> or boyfriend doing this to you now?
It would be tragic, in this situation, if she could succeed in a false
rape claim.
>>A key principle of justice is not to punish innocent people. The scope
>>for litigious abuse, by removing the references to spouse, is
>>immense, far more than the likely remedies that a genuinely injured
>>spice would get. IMHO
>
> we don't eliminate laws because there is potential of abuse.
> we try to regulate that by other means. i can go and lie
> about you bashing in my windshield, about you poisoning my
> dog, about you cheating me in business -- i can lie until
> the cows come home. the burden of proof lies on the accuser.
I'm aware of this. In the one situation involving me being falsely
accused, I won decisively. I was much better prepared than he was,
but won largely by luck. Unfortunately I had no redress about the
emotional distress, and the amount of time he wasted.
A second situation, I agreed to a draw, without having to take the
stand. The evidence presented by the accusing party and cross
examination of them, was stronger evidence in my defence than anything
I presented (stronger because *they* presented it). Complete victory,
was uncertain, and would have cost me too much.
Please don't ask for me to expand on the above, much as I'd love to,
but it would not be fair to some of the people involved.
> you seem to have an odd view of marriage -- do you really
> think that people who are happily married think to themselves
> "gee, i think i claim s/he raped me last month"?
No.
A couple can be unhappily married, and under great stress, which
results in poor communication. Non-verbal signals that would normally
be picked up may not be, hence there is considerable scope for
mis-understandings. Especially, if one, or both, parties are giving
out mixed signals.
Also, it is quite common for the departure of one partner to come as a
surprise to the other partner. Retrospective analysis, hindsight, may
indicate the signs were clear, but these are not always correctly
interpreted at the time.
> or is it
> not rather those who are actually being abused now have no
> recourse? you're so intent on protecting the innocent --
> what about those who are being abused? are they not innocent
> as well?
This is an highly emotional area. I do not know of any *reliable*
statistics. The impression I have, is that a lot of abused women have
insufficient protection and support, the court system appears to
favour the abuser.
However, sometimes each partner has suffered abuse from the other,
this does not justify ether abuse, and sometimes the abuse claimed is
more severe than what happened.
I can't say how often the abused individual is effectively innocent,
possibly most of the time.
Confidentiality prevents me from describing a real situation that
would show more clearly that I understand and appreciate your position.
Alexi, if anything I've said in this post, or my previous one, offends
you, then I deeply apologise.
Gavin
[This has taken more of my time than I can spare. I've done my best
to respond fairly, but I'm sure there is still legitimate discussion
left. If I want to do the best for my family, I'd best quit this
thread now, and not allow myself to be provoked into any more replies.
It is now almost 2 am, I'm going to bed...]
--
Tomorrow's Society | flow...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Depends on ----------------------------
Today's Children - help us raise them properly!
******* These comments have no known correlation with dept. policy! *******
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C12A4B...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <dusek.743349402@mica>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
This is a most crass suggestion. Why should our society want to encourage
individual and violent solutions when changing laws to better protect
victims is a more rational and more civilized approach? I have no desire
to carry a weapon, though I find it facsinating that you are the second
*man* to suggest I do so. Then, I can go to jail for shooting someone,
which, last time I checked, was illegal in this country. Did you see
Thelma and Louise? That's exactly what the character in that movie
did, and the uproar from men was practically deafening. Sorry guys, you
can't have it both ways. And anyway, what a lovely world it would be
if everyone thought the way you do.
Danielle
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C13D6C...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <bitbugCA...@netcom.com>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <bitbugCA...@netcom.com>
bit...@netcom.com (James Buster) writes:
>It's not the real victims we are worried about. If you cry "rape", you
>get a lot of sympathy. People feel sorry for you, and want to help you.
>Some people *really like* that kind of attention. Others are just plain
>mean and abusive. It's those kind of people I worry about, and it's not
>necessarily possible to tell beforehand whether or not your sexual partner
>is like this.
>--
> James Buster
> bit...@netcom.com
I don't know how the men posting to this net manage to have relationships
at all. You are so paranoid. And my, but you have a negative opinion of
women. I think you need to find a female friend who has been assaulted
and ask her about all the sympathy she got. Not from her friends, but from
the world in general [cops, courts, etc]. You don't know what you're
talking about.
I fully admit that there are unbalanced women out there. Women who would
accuse without cause. But these people are few and far between and don't
represent the world in general. It just seems to me that the people [men]
concerned about this have really blow the possibility all out of proportion.
I simply repeat that the law should address the needs of the society as a
whole, and date rape and sexual assault are substantiated and substantial
problems in *this* society and it is right that victims be protected as
much as the law allows. It is up to the courts and defense attorneys to
see that the law is not abused and that justice is done.
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C13D6C...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <CAL8n...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>So, Danielle, should this man get a new girlfriend when he gets out of
>prison?
>BTW, after a trial, this man was acquitted. It only cost him about
>$5,000 and his education for a while. Of course, he won't be
>stigmatized by the fact that he was once tried for rape.....
This is a very sad story. I am especially moved since this poor victimized
man was screwing around on someone who trusted him. Of course he didn't go
to prison and he doesn't appear all that stigmatized, since you are attempting
to make him into a folk hero. I don't personally know too many people who
check on people's police record before they date or become friendly with
someone. I never denied that there are unbalanced members of both sexes.
The fact that this man was acquitted suggests that the system works. Oh,
and I'm sure the woman who accused him enjoyed her participation in the
American justice system, since she was undoubtably treated with the utmost
respect throughout the proceedings.
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C13D8A...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <CAL9o...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
Aaron,
You're such a charmer. Maybe we could have coffee sometime. I am not a lawyer
so I am really not qualified to answer the majority of your questions. But I
will answer the last one. Yes, I do think men have reason to fear being
falsely accused of rape. Statistics show that one woman in three will be
raped or sexually molested in her lifetime. Maybe you could find stats on
what proportion of men suffer from having been falsely accused of rape. Let us
assume it is something less than one man in three. I know it's a stretch, but
maybe *you* could admit that women have reason to fear being raped and there-
fore have reason to ask that laws be instituted to protect them.
Danielle
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C13D6C...@vm.temple.edu> <22pbd2$5...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <22pbd2$5...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>
>Hello Danielle, and thank you for replying to my post.
>if she did accuse me she would win and
>I would go jail. Puts a new light on things, no?
Charles, what makes you so sure she would win. There are no
guarantees in our legal system. Do you really think every woman
who brings a case wins?
>
>Have a nice day,
>Charles
>
>PS: It's hard to be mean when listening to B-52's.
I don't particularly care for the B-52's, but beyond that, are you
suggesting that I'm being *mean*? Why can you express any opinion
you want, but expressing my opinion is being mean?
I don't deny that men can fear being falsely accused. But let me repeat:
statisics show that one woman in three is raped or sexually molested in
her lifetime. What do you suppose are the proportion of men who suffer
from false accusations? I think it would be reasonable to assume it
is somewhat less than one man in three. Maybe you could admit that women
have something substantial to fear and that it is not unreasonable for them
to desire laws to protect them.
And you too, have a lovely day,
Danielle
ARI...@vm.temple.edu
References: <16C13D8A...@vm.temple.edu> <22pl1n$2...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
In article <22pl1n$2...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>In article <16C13D8A...@vm.temple.edu> ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>>In article <22k2bj$4...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
>But if you support this law, you are supporting *exactly* that. A
>
>Do I detect a certain hatred of men here? Nahh... couldn't be.
>I'm sorry I even mentioned it, it simply couldn't be true.
>
Charles, you are too outrageous. I don't hate men at all. I'm married
to one, quite a decent one, and one I trust utterly. I also have a lovely
brother, and a not so lovely brother, both of whom I love very much. You
could be stepping over the line just a bit with that last. You hardly know
me well enough to make such a sweeping statement.
Look, I came into this conversation in the middle. I don't even know about
the law in question. I was just moved to write by some of the outrageous
things men were saying about women.
I don't believe that women are helpless victims. I don't believe that
women can never protect themselves. What I *know* is that there is an
absolutely tragic amount of violence against women in this society, mostly
perpetuated by men who are, by and large, bigger and stronger than the women
they attack. They are frequently in relationships with these women. And
women are brought up to think they have a certain role in life and that
role sometimes includes being hurt by men. Historically, the law in this
country has not been particularly concerned about the quality of women's
lives, and what the men in their lives might do to them. If the pendulum is
now swinging to the other side, and the law is overly concerned with
protecting women, I'm afraid I can't be too upset if men now feel threatened.
Where were men's voices all those years, when the law said women were men's
property and what a man did was above reproach. I'm not talking 100 years
ago either.
Danielle
Rolfe G. Petschek
>Organization: Temple University
>References: <16C12A4B...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <dusek.743349402@mica>
>X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>
>>
>>ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>>>by men, and many more women LIVE IN FEAR, because we KNOW that our
>>>chance to be hurt and exploited is always right there around the corner.
>>
>> The answers simple Danielle, 230 grains of lead are a great
>>equalizer. You shouldn't have to fear corners, and if you do takeing
>>self defence with firearms courses and getting yourself armed. The first
>>step in taking the courses BEFORE carrying the weapon.
>
>individual and violent solutions when changing laws to better protect
>victims is a more rational and more civilized approach? I have no desire
>to carry a weapon, though I find it facsinating that you are the second
>*man* to suggest I do so. Then, I can go to jail for shooting someone,
>which, last time I checked, was illegal in this country. Did you see
>Thelma and Louise? That's exactly what the character in that movie
>did, and the uproar from men was practically deafening. Sorry guys, you
Thelma first uses the threat of deadly force to stop a rape. Hurrah.
Cheers. Perfectly legal. She then uses deadly force in a situation
in which the threat of rape is much decreased and, indeed unclear.
Boo, Hiss. Questionable legality, probably illegal in fact.
--
Rolfe G. Petschek Pets...@cwru.bitnet
Associate Professor of Physics r...@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University (216)368-4035
Cleveland Oh 44106-7079
Rolfe G. Petschek
>Organization: Temple University
>References: <16C13D6C...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <bitbugCA...@netcom.com>
>X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>I don't know how the men posting to this net manage to have relationships
>at all. You are so paranoid. And my, but you have a negative opinion of
>women. I think you need to find a female friend who has been assaulted
Sweeping generalizations are usually false.
>and ask her about all the sympathy she got. Not from her friends, but from
>the world in general [cops, courts, etc]. You don't know what you're
>talking about.
Generally speaking it is the philosophy of the law in this country that
it is arranged to make false conviction much harder than false
acquittal. I agree with this philosophy even (and even especially) when
it applies to something as repugnant as rape. How would you change the
law (text of ORC available by e-mail on request.)
In many states (e.g. Ohio) a victim of sexual assault has certain rights
guaranteed by law. I will not assert that I know of no situations in
which these laws were violated.
Disclaimers:
There maybe typographical errors and
I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice, if you take it as such
you are a blithering idiot. Legal advice should be obtained directly
from a professional.
2907.29 Emergency medical services for victims; information to be given
to victims; consent of minor
Every hospital of this state which offers organized emergency services
shall provide that a physician is available on call twenty-four hours
each day for the examination of persons reported to any law enforcement
agency to be victims of sexual offenses cognizable as violations of
sections 2907.02 to 2907.06 or section 2907.12 of the Revised Code. The
physician shall, upon the request of any peace officer or prosecuting
attorney, and with the consent of the reported victim, or upon the
request of the reported victim, examine such person for the purposes of
gathering physical evidence. The public health council shall establish
procedures for gathering evidence under this section.
Each reported victim shall be informed of available venereal disease,
pregnancy, medical, and psychiatric services.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a minor may consent to
examination under this section. Such consent is not subject to
disaffirmance because of minority, and consent of the parent, parents,
or guardian of a minor is not required for such examination. However,
the hospital shall give written notice to the parent, parents, or
guardian of a minor that such an examination has taken place. The
parent, parents, or guardian of a minor giving consent under this
section are not liable for payment of any services provided under this
section without their consent.
2907.30 Right to interview by one with crisis intervention training;
notice to victim of accused sex offender's communicable disease
(A) A victim of a sexual offense cognizable as a violation of sections
2907.02 to 2907.06 or 2907.12 of the Revised Code who is interviewed by
a law enforcement agency shall be interviewed by a peace officer
employed by the agency who has had crisis intervention training, if any
of the peace officers employed by the agency who have crisis
intervention training is reasonably available.
(B) When a person is charged with a violation of section 2907.02,
2907.03, 2907.04, 2907.05, 2907.06 or 2907.12 of the Revised Code and
the law enforcement agency that arrested the person or a court discovers
that the person arrested or a person who the person arrested caused to
have sexual activity has a communicable disease, the law enforcement
agency that arrested the person or the court immediately shall notify the
victim of the nature of the disease.
(C) As used in this section, "crisis intervention training" has the same
meaning as in section 109.71 of the Revised Code.
Mark Evans
: Organization: Temple University
You do have a lovely system, an inocent person is charged $5000 for
the privilige.
What about the criminal, she is in jail for perjury and wasting
police time?
Mark Evans
: I don't believe that women are helpless victims. I don't believe that
: women can never protect themselves. What I *know* is that there is an
: absolutely tragic amount of violence against women in this society, mostly
It still happens to be considerably less than the about of violence
which occurs against men, if you insist of dividing by gender.
But the group which has the lesser problem gets a larger amount of
attention and resourses focused on it.
: perpetuated by men who are, by and large, bigger and stronger than the women
Something of a red-hearing, but a common one, unless one of the
people involved is physically disabled (or an individual of very little
physical strength)
: they attack. They are frequently in relationships with these women. And
: women are brought up to think they have a certain role in life and that
: role sometimes includes being hurt by men. Historically, the law in this
Who teaches people these roles?
If you look at who has most influence of young children then you get
a large proportion of women.
: country has not been particularly concerned about the quality of women's
: lives, and what the men in their lives might do to them. If the pendulum is
And it still, as it has for centuries ignores when the victims are men.
: now swinging to the other side, and the law is overly concerned with
: protecting women, I'm afraid I can't be too upset if men now feel threatened.
Maybe things have to get as dangerous for women as they are, and have
been for a long time, for men.
Charles Savoie
>
>In article <22pbd2$5...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>>
>>
>>Hello Danielle, and thank you for replying to my post.
>>if she did accuse me she would win and
>>I would go jail. Puts a new light on things, no?
> Charles, what makes you so sure she would win. There are no
> guarantees in our legal system. Do you really think every woman
> who brings a case wins?
*sigh* Listen Danielle, are you reading my posts all the way through
or not?
The law says "no consent given while drunk may be used in a rape
case." Do you understand what this means? It means she would
win if she could prove a) she was drunk and b) they had sex.
Am I not being clear enough?
>>PS: It's hard to be mean when listening to B-52's.
>I don't particularly care for the B-52's, but beyond that, are you
>suggesting that I'm being *mean*? Why can you express any opinion
>you want, but expressing my opinion is being mean?
Take it easy for crying out loud! I was suggesting that *I* was
being extremely nice in light of your refusal to *try* and understand
the situation. I wasn't suggesting anything about you.
>I don't deny that men can fear being falsely accused. But let me repeat:
>statisics show that one woman in three is raped or sexually molested in
>her lifetime. What do you suppose are the proportion of men who suffer
>from false accusations? I think it would be reasonable to assume it
>is somewhat less than one man in three. Maybe you could admit that women
>have something substantial to fear and that it is not unreasonable for them
>to desire laws to protect them.
You are truly illogical.
The point is not who suffers from false accusations; the point is that
in this case, THE LAW in question SAYS that an accusation is all that is
needed IF (a) she was drunk and (B) they had sex. How many times do I have
to repeat this before you get it? I've tried but I can't put it much simpler
than that, sorry.
As for the last sentence, my answer is yes; there is a need for laws
against rape. But a drunk woman having sex does not always mean
a rape occured (IMO), but this law says a rape ALWAYS occurs when
a drunk woman has sex. IMO this goes beyond protecting women,
and into harming INNOCENT men, something with which you don't find
anything wrong.
>And you too, have a lovely day,
Likewise!
>Danielle
Charles Savoie
>In article <22pl1n$2...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>>But if you support this law, you are supporting *exactly* that. A
>>Do I detect a certain hatred of men here? Nahh... couldn't be.
>>I'm sorry I even mentioned it, it simply couldn't be true.
>Charles, you are too outrageous. I don't hate men at all. I'm married
>to one, quite a decent one, and one I trust utterly. I also have a lovely
>brother, and a not so lovely brother, both of whom I love very much. You
>could be stepping over the line just a bit with that last. You hardly know
>me well enough to make such a sweeping statement.
If I supported the KKK, would you say I hated blacks without even
knowing me very well?
Support of this law = hatred of men in my book.
>Look, I came into this conversation in the middle. I don't even know about
>the law in question.
Fascinating. No wonder you made no sense at all. Now that I've repeated
this law OVER AND OVER, do you understand what we mean?
>I was just moved to write by some of the outrageous
>things men were saying about women.
Like what?
[men bad women good deleted]
>If the pendulum is
>now swinging to the other side, and the law is overly concerned with
>protecting women, I'm afraid I can't be too upset if men now feel threatened.
A true feminist. Only feel upset when women feel threatened. This is further
evidence for your misandry.
>Where were men's voices all those years, when the law said women were men's
>property and what a man did was above reproach. I'm not talking 100 years
>ago either.
So now it's the turn of the women to be above reproach? Don't you see
that you're supporting exactly what you hate?
Acquiescence
>You do have a lovely system, an inocent person is charged $5000 for
>the privilige.
>
>What about the criminal, she is in jail for perjury and wasting
>police time?
More to the point, women who make false rape accusations are
rarely, if ever, tried for their crime. And it _is_ a crime.
Consider what a ridiculous world we'd live in if we granted
people who try to commit insurance fraud the same sympathy and
kindness we grant women who make false rape accusations.
Snort. Just imagine.
--
all new thread elimination .sig: (make your own!)
The 21st century begins at 12:00:00 on 1/1/2001. The proper date for new
millenium parties is 31/12/2000, not 31/12/1999. Years are cardinal
numbers. 2000+1=2001. New, creative counting schemes need not apply.
Rick LaFave
>Organization: Temple University
>References: <16C13D6C...@vm.temple.edu> <22pbd2$5...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>
>In article <22pbd2$5...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
>chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
>
>>
>>
>>Hello Danielle, and thank you for replying to my post.
>>if she did accuse me she would win and
>>I would go jail. Puts a new light on things, no?
>
> Charles, what makes you so sure she would win. There are no
> guarantees in our legal system. Do you really think every woman
> who brings a case wins?
>>
>>Have a nice day,
>>Charles
>>
>>PS: It's hard to be mean when listening to B-52's.
>
>I don't particularly care for the B-52's, but beyond that, are you
>suggesting that I'm being *mean*? Why can you express any opinion
>you want, but expressing my opinion is being mean?
Presumably, he is listening to the B-52s not you.
>
>I don't deny that men can fear being falsely accused. But let me repeat:
>statisics show that one woman in three is raped or sexually molested in
>her lifetime. What do you suppose are the proportion of men who suffer
>from false accusations? I think it would be reasonable to assume it
>is somewhat less than one man in three. Maybe you could admit that women
>have something substantial to fear and that it is not unreasonable for them
>to desire laws to protect them.
>
>And you too, have a lovely day,
>Danielle
This paragraph (or the theme) has been repeated several times. I don't
think you would find many that would argue your basic contention....
That more women are really raped than men who are falsly accused. I
certainly wont argue your premise (I recognize quicksand when I see it).
I would point out though that our system is built around innocent until
proven guilty. It is this very construction that lets crimminals roam free
to the detriment of society, rather that put a falsly accused in prison.
Our system is not built around 'lets keep women from being raped, at all
cost'. It may truely (or not) be a sad situation, however, the system
is constructed around - we should at all costs keep an innocent from going
to jail, despite the fact that there exists some (non-zero) probability
that they are guilty and will commit the crime again.
I would certainly admit that women have something substantial to fear
and that it is not unreasonable for them to desire laws to protect them.
I would draw the line however when someones fear of rape results in laws
that infringe on my due process guarantees.
Benjamin Renaud
>Charles, you are an alarmist and full of it. If a woman *willingly* has
>sex with a man, then she won't claim she was raped, whether she was drunk
>or otherwise, and there won't be a case, and *you* won't have anything to be
>"afraid" of.
>Danielle
As a matter of fact it does happen. Quite a bit too. _People_ (yes
people, surprise surprise) do horrible things. Like lie. Or rape.
What else is new? That's why we presume people innocent until proven
guilty...
If you don't believe me, check the FBI report on violent crime, under
falsely reported crimes. Guess what's the most frequently falsely
reported crime.
Benjamin Renaud dod 676, '85 Nighthawk 700S: IT'S RED! (and currently
broken. Damn!) brake for moose and don't believe I speak for anyone
but myself. "If all had gone as planned, everything would have been
perfect" Some BATF person.
Jean Yves Desbiens
: Organization: Temple University
: References: <16C13D6C...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <bitbugCA...@netcom.com>
: X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
:
: In article <bitbugCA...@netcom.com>
: bit...@netcom.com (James Buster) writes:
:
: >It's not the real victims we are worried about. If you cry "rape", you
: >get a lot of sympathy. People feel sorry for you, and want to help you.
: >Some people *really like* that kind of attention. Others are just plain
: >mean and abusive. It's those kind of people I worry about, and it's not
: >necessarily possible to tell beforehand whether or not your sexual partner
: >is like this.
: at all. You are so paranoid. And my, but you have a negative opinion of
: women. I think you need to find a female friend who has been assaulted
: and ask her about all the sympathy she got. Not from her friends, but from
: the world in general [cops, courts, etc]. You don't know what you're
: talking about.
Well, talking usually releives the paranoia, most couple barely know each
other, so signs may be hard to get if you don't know what they are. They
don't have such a negative opinion of women Danielle, they have a negative
opinion of MANKIND (quite a difference); by the way, I was assaulted
(not sexually of course) 2 times by strangers and I am six feet tall and
witnessed a mass murder (of women) remeber the polytechnique massacer. Well,
Off course, I am a man, root of all evil, I deserve to get beaten by a group
of thugs on a public bus in broad daylight or menaced at knifepoint (true
events ). As for the Polytechnique thing, I still have guilt because I
think I might have been able to warn some of the people in one class, but
In my flight to survive it didn't even cross my mind, I didn't know he only
shot women then. Well, some feminist used this sad event to further their
agenda, found that sickening; one of the surviver, that I know, Heidi Ratje,
went out on a crusade against guns, she didn't think this was a women's
issue, but a people's issue. Escalating violence hits men and women in
different ways but it seams that violence against men is never a media event.
Most men have been victim of some sort of violence, but it seams to be
natural, we are tough, we can take it after all (sic). How much sympathy
do you think I have when I come in a police station with bruised ribs,
broken nose, destroyed glassed, bruised groin (from the kicks I received).
They see things like that everyday, but I would like reconfort, someone
to explain my rage to, the justice system seldom gives sympathy, its a
fact. Policemen don't quite know how to treat anything related to sex.
homosexual get a lot less sympathy than rape victim when they get beat up,
As far as the policemen know, heterosexual sex is supposed to be fun "the media"
say so all the time (sic), how can this be bad they ask. This is just
compounded to the usual lack of sympathy of the justice system to make
a great big pile of insensibilities.
The main problem is that the bruises from raping are more psychological
than physical, so its harder to prove that the fact did happen, everytime
the psyche is involved it gets complex. All the burden of proof relies
on testemony, why should one be beleived more than the other, both can
lie, certitude is harder to ascertain in these cases. Since usually the
justice system doesn't want to put an innocent person in jail, it cuts
some slack in the direction of the defense, that means that SOMETIMES a
rapist will go free. It is possible to avoid that any rapist go free, but
only by putting on non negligeable number of innocents in jail. If the same
logic is applied to all crimes, the number of innocents in jail would be
intolerably high. Rape while a vile crime, must benefit from some relaxing
of the burden of proof criteria, for this sets a dangerous precedent.
: I fully admit that there are unbalanced women out there. Women who would
: accuse without cause. But these people are few and far between and don't
: represent the world in general. It just seems to me that the people [men]
: concerned about this have really blow the possibility all out of proportion.
I don't think there are so few, if 10% (number only used to show a point, not
meant to be exact, I know how number wars can get out of hand :) of men
lare capable of rape, why not 10% of women capable (potentially, doesn't
mean they will do it) of false accusations, women are not inherentally saints
you know. If they put 1 innocent man in prison, for every 1000 accusation of
this kind, this is still to much for me. That would mean putting at least a
couple of innocents in jail a year. You may say that this will be offset by
the numbers of real rapist put in jail, but those that are sacrificed to this
lesser burden of proof certainly won't agree.
:
: I simply repeat that the law should address the needs of the society as a
: whole, and date rape and sexual assault are substantiated and substantial
: problems in *this* society and it is right that victims be protected as
: much as the law allows. It is up to the courts and defense attorneys to
: see that the law is not abused and that justice is done.
But the law can go to far, laws are not absolutes, they can be wrong.
So if a law relaxes the burden of proof to much, we must object, because
if this spreads, and it will, it will affect us all someday. If the law
in itself is an abuse of the term presumed innocent, it will be hard
for the defense atorney to do anything (they will be in a legal straighjacket),
justice may be done, but at what cost ?
PS : In the US, a lot of the law is based on precedents, they often mask
the law itself, so maybe precedents setting cases will adjust the
interpretation of the law to give it a more balance feel, it certainly
is a bit unbalanced right now.
--
No one has ever told you what you are -- muddled, criminally muddled.
Men like you use repentance as a blind. so don't repent. Only say to
yourself "What Helen had done, I've done."
-- Howards End, E.M. Forster 1908-1910
Jean-Yves Desbiens | d40...@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique | Ecole polytechnique de Montreal
Greg Otts
>Organization: Temple University
>References: <16C13D6C...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <CAL8n...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>
>>So, Danielle, should this man get a new girlfriend when he gets out of
>>prison?
>>BTW, after a trial, this man was acquitted. It only cost him about
>>$5,000 and his education for a while. Of course, he won't be
>>stigmatized by the fact that he was once tried for rape.....
>
>This is a very sad story. I am especially moved since this poor victimized
>man was screwing around on someone who trusted him. Of course he didn't go
>to prison and he doesn't appear all that stigmatized, since you are attempting
>to make him into a folk hero. I don't personally know too many people who
>check on people's police record before they date or become friendly with
>someone. I never denied that there are unbalanced members of both sexes.
>The fact that this man was acquitted suggests that the system works. Oh,
>and I'm sure the woman who accused him enjoyed her participation in the
>American justice system, since she was undoubtably treated with the utmost
>respect throughout the proceedings.
Several points:
1) One can not infer that the man wasn't stigmitized because
Charles is reporting his story. Indeed, it is more likely
that Charles knows his story because the rape trail had
a lot of local coverage. People won't believe he is innocent
just because he is acquitted. (Remember William Kennedy Smith?
Do you believe he was innocent?)
3) The man would have probably went to jail if "drunk sex = rape"
were the law. The girlfriend called the police immediately
after he had fallen asleep after sex. All she would have
had to do is get drunk before intercourse. Her blood alcohol
content could then be used as evidence.
3) The general tone of your comments shows much more sympathy
for the woman in this case than the man. You think the
man wasn't stigmitized but the poor, falsely accusing woman
might have been unfairly treated by the court system. I
underlined one sentence in particular because you seem to
share with this "unbalanced woman" (your words) the feeling
that the man somehow got what was coming to him because he
broke the trust of this woman.
- Greg Otts
Bronis Vidugiris
)Thelma first uses the threat of deadly force to stop a rape. Hurrah.
)Cheers. Perfectly legal. She then uses deadly force in a situation
)in which the threat of rape is much decreased and, indeed unclear.
)Boo, Hiss. Questionable legality, probably illegal in fact.
I finally saw a bit of this film, though only up to the part where the rapist is
shot. It looked like manslaughter to me (at least), but if she claimed that she
felt afraid for her life and that the rapist was both shouting at her (which I
think he was) and started to approach her (which he wasn't), she'd probably had
a good chance of getting off. IMO.
--
"Stop or I'll scream" -- Black Bolt
James P. Dusek
>References: <16C12A4B...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> <dusek.743349402@mica>
>X-Newsreader: NNR/VM S_1.3.2
>>chance avoiding injury than people who submit.
>>James Dusek
>This is a most crass suggestion. Why should our society want to encourage
>individual and violent solutions when changing laws to better protect
When do criminals follow laws?
>victims is a more rational and more civilized approach? I have no desire
>to carry a weapon, though I find it facsinating that you are the second
>*man* to suggest I do so. Then, I can go to jail for shooting someone,
You will not go to jail if you are carrying a weapon within the
law, and you shoot someone attacking you.
>which, last time I checked, was illegal in this country. Did you see
>Thelma and Louise? That's exactly what the character in that movie
>did, and the uproar from men was practically deafening. Sorry guys, you
>can't have it both ways.
No, what Thelma and Louise did was kill a man in cold blood. He
had no weapon, therefore there was no reason to shoot. Sorry lady, but
your off target. I guess its better you don't think about carrying a
gun.
>And anyway, what a lovely world it would be
>if everyone thought the way you do.
Yes it would. Criminals would fear to walk the streets, not
honest people. Women would have less to fear, and we'd all be happy.
James Dusek
Don Gillies
My favorite bit of legal hypocricy.
A woman gets drunk, boyfriend convinces her to have sex, they finish
sex, she drives home (still drunk), crashes car, and kills someone.
She prosecutes her boyfriend because she's not legally held
responsible for her actions (consent) while she was drunk.
The state sends her to prison for vehicular homicide because
she's legally held responsible for her actions (driving) while
she was drunk.
The feminist lobbying groups have really done a hatchet job on legal
principles by putting these ridiculous laws on the books.... I say,
either you're responsible for getting into a state of drunkenness and
your actions therein, or you are not, and there should be no
exceptions.....
- Don
--
Charles Savoie
>
[...]
>Several points:
>
> 1) One can not infer that the man wasn't stigmitized because
> Charles is reporting his story.
It was Aaron H., not me, who told the story.
EL...@purccvm.bitnet
defends herself is LESS likely to be seriously injured by an attacker.
I strongly recommend not only self-defense classes, but tournament
fighting experience. I took kung fu lessons for two years, and in our
sparring we always wore gloves, sneakers, chest pads and head gear (the
last being a royal pain to deal with, but vital). The experience of
trying to THINK and use strategy while being attacked by another woman
was most valuable. It also provided me with some of the longest and most
exhausting 45-seconds of my life.... There is nothing that can substitute
for personally experiencing that being knocked down is not is not the end
of your life, may not even be the end of the fight.
Dave Fuller
: >
: > When people use firearms for self defence, they have a better
: >chance avoiding injury than people who submit.
: >
: >James Dusek
:
: This is a most crass suggestion. Why should our society want to encourage
: individual and violent solutions when changing laws to better protect
: victims is a more rational and more civilized approach?
How would you change the laws so that they are more effective than an
individual protecting himself ?? The law would have to have a violent
overtone at least, in order to get peopl eto follow it. Rationality and
being civilized will never stop criminals, sorry. The only way to stop a
criminal is to give to crime victim the power to do so on the spot.
As crass as you think it is, that is the only effective way to handle
the situation.
: I have no desire
: to carry a weapon, though I find it facsinating that you are the second
: *man* to suggest I do so.
What is the purpose of *man* in that sentence ? Are you saying that it is
a shock that a man would suggest it, because you know that one day he will
be met by his own suggestion ? Certainly all men are not rapists. What is
wrong (or outstanding) about a man telling you to carry a weapon ?
: Then, I can go to jail for shooting someone,
: which, last time I checked, was illegal in this country. Did you see
: Thelma and Louise?
Sure, shooting someone is illegal . . . . if you had no reason to do so.
Sure, I saw Thelma and Louise. If I remember correctly, that was a movie.
Ever seen Star Wars, Gremlins, or Superman ??
: Sorry guys, you
: can't have it both ways.
Both ways ? What are the two ways ?
: And anyway, what a lovely world it would be
: if everyone thought the way you do.
Who cares about a "lovely" world (sprinkle harp music here). What people should be more concerned with is a safe world for themself.
--
Dave Fuller
dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
Dave Fuller
:
: I fully admit that there are unbalanced women out there. Women who would
: accuse without cause. But these people are few and far between and don't
: represent the world in general. It just seems to me that the people [men]
: concerned about this have really blow the possibility all out of proportion.
Ditto for men. There are some unbalanced men. But you seem to do just as good
a job at portraying men in general as people who get jollies out of raping.
Rapists don't represent the world in general either, so we should not be
concerned with them from what you are saying.
If we can discount women that would accuse without cause, then we must also
discount rapists at the same time.
--
Dave Fuller
dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
Dave Fuller
: I don't deny that men can fear being falsely accused. But let me repeat:
: statisics show that one woman in three is raped or sexually molested in
: her lifetime. What do you suppose are the proportion of men who suffer
: from false accusations? I think it would be reasonable to assume it
: is somewhat less than one man in three. Maybe you could admit that women
: have something substantial to fear and that it is not unreasonable for them
: to desire laws to protect them.
Statistics. Nice.
You are trying to make one problem seem inferior to another because of the
rate at which it happens. How many people have cried because of something
their parent did ? Maybe something like 99 out of 100. Looks like it is more
of a problem than rape. Let's skip all considerations for rape and shift
our concentration on teaching parents not to make their children cry. After
all, crying is an unpleasant experience.
I am in no way saying that rape isn't disgusting or shouldn't be punished,
but I am suggesting that if you want help with a problem, you don't run
around telling other people how your problems are worse than their problems.
--
Dave Fuller
dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
James P. Dusek
>In article <1993Jul26.1...@aston.ac.uk> eva...@m47327.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>You do have a lovely system, an inocent person is charged $5000 for
>>the privilige.
>>What about the criminal, she is in jail for perjury and wasting
>>police time?
> More to the point, women who make false rape accusations are
> rarely, if ever, tried for their crime. And it _is_ a crime.
> Consider what a ridiculous world we'd live in if we granted
> people who try to commit insurance fraud the same sympathy and
> kindness we grant women who make false rape accusations.
Your wrong! Men are rapeing women somewhere in the world,
so even if one women makes a wrong accusation, it makes up for the
men who go unpunished! If one man rapes they are all guilty!
James Dusek
p.s. this is a joke :)
David Green
Hey! Someone finally noticed that post! And they agree with me! Cool!
I agree with you, extended training in a martial art is of great
benefit, unfortunately not many people are willing to dedicate that much
time to these sorts of things. That's why my friends and I originally
began teaching our self defence class. We feel that if we can just get
people to the stage where they realize they can fight back, they usually
will, and that will usually be enough to allow them to escape relatively
unharmed.
Also, your comment about being knocked down not ending your life
is also very important. This is also true about being hit, bruised, cut,
and other injuries. Too many people think they'll just roll over and die
as soon as they've been hurt.
DAVE GREEN
P.S. 45 seconds sure is a hell of a long time, isn't it? Oddly enough,
that's just how long our graduation exercise lasts.
Laura
>This is a most crass suggestion. Why should our society want to encourage
>individual and violent solutions when changing laws to better protect
>to carry a weapon, though I find it facsinating that you are the second
>which, last time I checked, was illegal in this country. Did you see
>can't have it both ways. And anyway, what a lovely world it would be
>if everyone thought the way you do.
Why does owning a weapon mean you will shoot it? How does owning a
firearm lead to it being used violently? Deterrents seem by nature
to deter violence.
I'm not sure why a weapon is considered crass. Now, the question of
whether or not it would make you feel safer remains. There are not
too many situations where I feel unsafe, and I don't put myself in
situations where I am often in need of a firearm. But I know for
instance of taxi drivers carrying because being a taxi driver can be
a potentially very dangerous business. I see no reason not to be
protected simply because it might hurt someone who was trying to hurt me.
Laura -- female making a suggestion for carrying
Laura
>This is a very sad story. I am especially moved since this poor victimized
>man was screwing around on someone who trusted him. Of course he didn't go
>to prison and he doesn't appear all that stigmatized, since you are attempting
>to make him into a folk hero. I don't personally know too many people who
>check on people's police record before they date or become friendly with
>someone. I never denied that there are unbalanced members of both sexes.
>The fact that this man was acquitted suggests that the system works. Oh,
>and I'm sure the woman who accused him enjoyed her participation in the
>American justice system, since she was undoubtably treated with the utmost
>respect throughout the proceedings
It seems biased to assume that she was not treated with respect throughout
the proceedings. Naturally creating her into a victim of the system is
in the long run a very detrimental tactic for gaining more power or in-
direct sympathy.
Laura
Laura
>I would certainly admit that women have something substantial to fear
>and that it is not unreasonable for them to desire laws to protect them.
>I would draw the line however when someones fear of rape results in laws
>that infringe on my due process guarantees
Could someone please post the law in question? Rick seems to be implying
here that a law has just been passed that infringes on men's due process,
and I for one would like to examine the law, before agreeing or disagreeing
with him.
Laura
Mark Evans
: In article <16C17A20...@vm.temple.edu> ARI...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
: >
: >In article <22pbd2$5...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca>
: >chuc...@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca (Charles Savoie) writes:
: >
: >>
: >>
: >>Hello Danielle, and thank you for replying to my post.
: >>if she did accuse me she would win and
: >>I would go jail. Puts a new light on things, no?
: > Charles, what makes you so sure she would win. There are no
: > guarantees in our legal system. Do you really think every woman
: > who brings a case wins?
: *sigh* Listen Danielle, are you reading my posts all the way through
: or not?
: The law says "no consent given while drunk may be used in a rape
: case." Do you understand what this means? It means she would
: win if she could prove a) she was drunk and b) they had sex.
: Am I not being clear enough?
If he was also drunk, and the law where he was recognised rape of a man
as a legal posibility then he could also press charges.
EVEN in this case it is still more likely that she would win the
case.
The problem is that even in the few cases where the laws are written
non sexistly.
The whole legal process is highly sexist.
Laura
> More to the point, women who make false rape accusations are
> rarely, if ever, tried for their crime. And it _is_ a crime.
This is a convoluted issue, as simply because a woman accuses the wrong
person does not mean she was not raped by someone else. While you may be
able to prove that she was not raped by this one man, you may not be able
to prove that she was not raped.
>
> Consider what a ridiculous world we'd live in if we granted
> people who try to commit insurance fraud the same sympathy and
> kindness we grant women who make false rape accusations.
> Snort. Just imagine.
Women who make legitimate accusations of rape are not unconditionally
given sympathy and/or kindness. You need to be sure that they are
treated with some measure of kindness and sympathy before you scoff at
bogus victims and the overly sympathetic treatment that they receive.
Laura
Laura
This seems to overlook a few points:
1. The man has responsibility as well. Is the man and his cock a
separate performing body? It would seem that if a man were
going to stand a good chance of being accused of rape, he would be
more careful about the nature of consent. I think that if I were
going to be accused of raping my boyfriend when he was drunk, I
would change boyfriends. If I were going to be accused of having sex
with a drunken stranger (sorry, be accused of raping them) then I
would not have sex with drunken strangers. I would get his number
and call him the next morning and make a date for lunch. If the
natural and logical consequences of a woman getting drunk is sexual
intercourse, then it would seem equal that the natural and logical
consequences of a man exploiting impaired consent would be that he
would be held responsible for any damages.
2. Not every couple who has drunken sex is going to end up in a
courtroom asking for a jury of peers to determine rape. The two
groups who are going to utilize this law are: 1. women with valid
and legitimate claims of rape. [men too, I suppose]. 2. women with
no valid claim, who is carrying out a grudge/personal vendetta. I
perhaps do have an inflated opinion of the justice system's ability
to weed out these two categories, but as it seems that these two
groups have totally opposed motivation and goals, it would seem that
the job wouldn't be terribly difficult.
3. Claiming rape doesn't not mean that the man will be convicted of
rape.Sure, its costly and stigmatizing. Most trials are both. That
is the fault of how we perceive litigation in our country, not of the
victim or the accused.
Laura
Laura
I'm glad this topic came up again, because when I replied to it the
first time, it failed to send because of a net problem.
When Dave Green posted about self-defense, my first reaction was, oh
man, not again. Sorry Dave.
The reason I said that was for this reason, which I said in my now-dead
post: I cautioned Dave from using absolutes about this issue, because
it has very spcific backlashes for women.
First, when you assert that fighting back is appropriate in all cases,
you have set up the women who did not fight back to be categorised as
weak, or worse yet, wanting it. On a personal note, I did myself
attempt to fight back. But I had already been injured enough in the
initial attack that fighting him just got me more and more punches in
the stomach where I was already hurt. I remember thinking I would never
have children right before I stopped fighting
Second, while I agree that personal protection is important, I also feel
that it important to stress that fighting back is not appropriate in all
situations, as not fighting is equally not appropriate in all situations.
Afterall, how does one counsel a woman who was unable to fight back? How
does one counsel a rape victim who is physically handicapped and unable
to go the bathroom unaided, much less fight a rapist? [this is a pretty
real dynamic too. people confined to chairs and subjected to the care of
others are known to really suffer from this type of assault]. You cannot
in all conscience tell everyone: "Look here, fighting back would have
prevented this." Not when the damage has already been done. Before the
damage is done, the main thing I would add to what Dave said is that
this is going to eliminate no one's chances of being raped. It is a
preventative measure only.
Just being anal about clarification,
Laura
Laura
>If he was also drunk, and the law where he was recognised rape of a man
>as a legal posibility then he could also press charges.
>EVEN in this case it is still more likely that she would win the
>case.
>The problem is that even in the few cases where the laws are written
>non sexistly.
>The whole legal process is highly sexist
In which direction?
Laura
David Green
><EL...@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>> Dave Green has brought out an important point, that a woman who
>>defends herself is LESS likely to be seriously injured by an attacker.
>
>I'm glad this topic came up again, because when I replied to it the
>first time, it failed to send because of a net problem.
>When Dave Green posted about self-defense, my first reaction was, oh
>man, not again. Sorry Dave.
Hey, DON'T say you're sorry!
This is a line I often have to use in class, after a woman has
successfully executed a technique against me, in which I may have been
hurt. It is also a pointer to what I'm trying to say. All to often, women
have been taught that they should be nice, soft, non-violent people who
should feel sorry for hurting someone, even if that someone is a 300-pound
brute who's doing his best to pin them to the floor. Like me.
This then leads to the belief that women CAN'T do anything to stop
said 300-pound brute, and it was this belief that I was trying to address.
I wanted to keep it short, so I avoided most of the issues you bring up.
That may have been a mistake, beacause this is the third response today
that I've written :-).
>The reason I said that was for this reason, which I said in my now-dead
>post: I cautioned Dave from using absolutes about this issue, because
>it has very spcific backlashes for women.
>First, when you assert that fighting back is appropriate in all cases,
>you have set up the women who did not fight back to be categorised as
>weak, or worse yet, wanting it.
Hmmm. I should have kept a copy of that post. I'm almost sure this
wasn't what I said. Or what I meant to say. I'm saying too many people
ALREADY categorise women as weak. They seem to dismiss the possibility of
defence out of hand.
Yes, there are cases where a person might not think fighting back
is a good idea. This decision can only be made by the person on the spot,
and I never try to second guess them. That being said, there ARE a lot of
situations where fighting back is the best option. I so rarely see
anyone admit that it is possible for a woman to fight back successfully that
I tend to only address this issue.
>On a personal note, I did myself
>attempt to fight back. But I had already been injured enough in the
>initial attack that fighting him just got me more and more punches in
>the stomach where I was already hurt. I remember thinking I would never
>have children right before I stopped fighting
This sounds like an awful experience. I'm going to just leave it
at that. Not second guessing, and all that. We can discuss it in greater
detail if you'd like, but I'll leave that up to you.
>Second, while I agree that personal protection is important, I also feel
>that it important to stress that fighting back is not appropriate in all
>situations, as not fighting is equally not appropriate in all situations.
>Afterall, how does one counsel a woman who was unable to fight back?
I stress that fighting back or not should be their choice, and
that noone can make it for them. That being said, I teach what to do if
they decide to fight back, since most people already know how to surrender.
As for a woman who was "unable" to fight back, I'd like to know
what you mean by unable. Do you mean tried and it didn't work, or just
froze, or was down and out before they had a chance? These things matter.
The only one I know anything about is the "tried and didn't work"
category. Studies have shown that women who resist, successfully or not,
tend to recover (emotionally, that is) faster than those who did not
resist. This comes from the "sense of helplessness" aspects of an
assaualt.
>How
>does one counsel a rape victim who is physically handicapped and unable
>to go the bathroom unaided, much less fight a rapist? [this is a pretty
>real dynamic too. people confined to chairs and subjected to the care of
>others are known to really suffer from this type of assault].
This is an issue I have thought about quite a bit. I've asked
around, in real life and on the Net, for information on teaching people
with physical limitations. I've learned a bit, enough for me to think that
it should be possible, but I'm still working on it. This goes back to my
original point, however, that all to often people just assume that it is
impossible for a person to defend themselves, and in a lot of cases this
just isn't true. These wrong assumptions can cause so much trouble that I
feel I must do something to try and change things. (Is that a windmill I
see? Charge! :-).
>You cannot
>in all conscience tell everyone: "Look here, fighting back would have
>prevented this." Not when the damage has already been done.
This gets back to my "second guessing" point I made above. I don't
tell people what they should have done, I just tell them what they can do,
in the future, and let them figure it out for themselves. Again, often
learning about how to prevent a future assault can help in getting over a
past assault.
>Before the
>damage is done, the main thing I would add to what Dave said is that
>this is going to eliminate no one's chances of being raped. It is a
>preventative measure only.
>
Eliminate, no. Reduce? Yes, I think so. If I didn't I wouldn't let
myself get smacked around twice a week trying to teach it.
One thing that motivates me is that there are lots of resources
available for people who have been victimized, but very little for those
who don't want to be victims in the first place. I'm just trying to cover
what I see as a hole in our society.
>Just being anal about clarification,
>Laura
Just getting sore typing fingers for not being clear,
DAVE GREEN
P.S. Just in re-reading, I noticed that the line about "before the damage is
done" could be read two ways, one that I like and one I don't. Which did you
mean?
P.P.S. This is quite possibly the longest post I've ever made. You just
inspired me, or something.
Dave Fuller
: 1. The man has responsibility as well. Is the man and his cock a
: going to stand a good chance of being accused of rape, he would be
: more careful about the nature of consent. I think that if I were
: going to be accused of raping my boyfriend when he was drunk, I
: would change boyfriends. If I were going to be accused of having sex
: with a drunken stranger (sorry, be accused of raping them) then I
: would not have sex with drunken strangers. I would get his number
: and call him the next morning and make a date for lunch. If the
: natural and logical consequences of a woman getting drunk is sexual
: intercourse, then it would seem equal that the natural and logical
: consequences of a man exploiting impaired consent would be that he
: would be held responsible for any damages.
I agree with your points, but they seem to be reflect what "should" more
than what "could".
The last part about exploiting impaired consent confuses me. How does a
person know if somebody else's consent is impaired. What if I am the rapist
and I have impaired "impaired consent sensing" abilities ? What if I think
the other person consented, but the other person doesn't remember
consenting becuase of intoxication - so just figures no consent was given.
Also, the real question isn't being asked here:
Is somebody raped if they don't consent, or ONLY if they say no. Certainly
there exists a difference between the two.
On that note, how does one determine if a mute person was raped ?
I know this is devil's advocate work, but if there is to be a universal
solution to rape it certainly needs to fit every case.
--
Dave Fuller
dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
Charles Savoie
>
>This seems to overlook a few points:
>separate performing body? It would seem that if a man were
>going to stand a good chance of being accused of rape, he would be
>more careful about the nature of consent.
I don't understand why this means he "deserves" to go to jail for
rape any more than a woman "deserves" to be raped while walking naked
through a dark park at night.
>I think that if I were
>going to be accused of raping my boyfriend when he was drunk, I
>would change boyfriends.
Too late! He already accused you. What now?
>If I were going to be accused of having sex
>with a drunken stranger (sorry, be accused of raping them) then I
>would not have sex with drunken strangers.
Good for you. And good advice in general. If it is illegal for
you to wear green, I guess you would not wear green either. See
my point?
[...]
>2. Not every couple who has drunken sex is going to end up in a
>courtroom asking for a jury of peers to determine rape.
True but irrelevant.
>The two
>groups who are going to utilize this law are: 1. women with valid
>and legitimate claims of rape. [men too, I suppose]. 2. women with
>no valid claim, who is carrying out a grudge/personal vendetta. I
>perhaps do have an inflated opinion of the justice system's ability
>to weed out these two categories, but as it seems that these two
>groups have totally opposed motivation and goals, it would seem that
>the job wouldn't be terribly difficult.
It would be extremely difficult given that THE LAW STATES that
consent given while drunk cannot be used as a defence in a rape
case. This means the victim would only have to prove (a) she
was drunk, and (b) she had sex with the accused. Now, if you
think this is a valid claim, that's another story; but if you
don't (like me) then you should perhaps ask yourself how the
justice system _would_ weed out these two categories, given
NO KNOWLEDGE of any consent.
>3. Claiming rape doesn't not mean that the man will be convicted of
>rape.
It does (under the law in question) if: consent was given while
intoxicated. Period.
>Sure, its costly and stigmatizing. Most trials are both. That
>is the fault of how we perceive litigation in our country, not of the
>victim or the accused.
And that alone is a big problem.
>Laura
Anne Eilertsen
<first part of post deleted>
|> Also, the real question isn't being asked here:
|>
|> Is somebody raped if they don't consent, or ONLY if they say no. Certainly
|> there exists a difference between the two.
|>
|> On that note, how does one determine if a mute person was raped ?
|>
|> I know this is devil's advocate work, but if there is to be a universal
|> solution to rape it certainly needs to fit every case.
I think the answer, to a certain degree, depends on whether you want a *legal*
definition of rape (how the law should be written) or an *informal* definition.
Or maybe the difference is just that it is difficult to prove something legally
(the usual "her word against his" problem). IMHO it is rape if the woman (or man -
I'll say 'woman' for brevity) protests verbally or by fighting back/pushing away
or otherwise clearly signalling "no" (this is difficult to prove of course) or if
she is unconscious (drugged/intoxicated) and cannot consent or protest (and here
there is the problem of deciding where the 'limit of intoxication' is...). Anyway
I guess these are the cases where I would feel raped. If I do not consent, but also
do not protest *at all* I would prefer that the man does not continue, but if he does,
I don't think I would call it rape. But this is my personal opinion, and I don't
really know what I think the law should say.
I think you will have problems with finding a "universal solution to rape
that fits every case".
|> --
|> Dave Fuller
|> dfu...@portal.hq.videocart.com
Anne Eilertsen
Harry E Noel
> I don't deny that men can fear being falsely accused. But let me
> repeat: statisics show that one woman in three is raped or sexually
> molested in her lifetime. What do you suppose are the proportion of men
> who suffer from false accusations?
Sounds like more propaganda to me. I remember reading a study with
similar results. That close to 1 in 3 women were molested or sexual
assaulted in their life.
But, the important point was that they included women who ever
'felt threatened' by words or felt uncomfortable in a given
situation as a sexual assault.
It is not moral to claim that 1 in 3 women are raped. And
I strongly suspect that the truth is that men are as much a
potential rapist as women have the potential to bring
false charges against men.
Maybe I have too much faith in people or perhaps others have
too little.
George W. Schlossnagle
>
>My favorite bit of legal hypocricy.
>
>A woman gets drunk, boyfriend convinces her to have sex, they finish
>sex, she drives home (still drunk), crashes car, and kills someone.
>
> She prosecutes her boyfriend because she's not legally held
> responsible for her actions (consent) while she was drunk.
>
> The state sends her to prison for vehicular homicide because
> she's legally held responsible for her actions (driving) while
> she was drunk.
This is one of my favorite little stories too. Perhaps you missed the
difference between the two. She didnt give consent (under the law, or
in reality) to sex, so it is rape. There are no consent issues
involved in driving. She was not coerced into driving. No one talked
her into it. Your car doesnt resist. It can't. It's an inanimate
object. That's the big difference between people and cars. People
can take advantage of other people, but they can't take advantage of
objects. She drove drunk and made a poor decision. On her own.
He talked her into having sex. She didnt make a decision on her own.
It was made for her. If someone put her behind the wheel and forced
her to drive, then we're talking similair situations.
Now as far as this relates to the law being debated back and forth
here (I havent followed the thread to well and dont even know what
state it is really (OH?)) then well I dont know the law well enough to
say either way. But to my understanding it says that drunk sex = no
consent, pure and simple. Well this has an upside and a down side.
The upside, it makes consent laws alot clearer- anyone who has seen
someone bring an aquaintance rape to court probably know how shitty
consent debates can be. The downside, alot of sex which is consensual
is termed rape under the law (that is pretty poor.) But back on the
upside, its unprosecutable unless someone brings charges, so if the
sex WAS consensual, then whats the worry? If you have enough doubts
in your mind that the person you are having sex with might press rape
charges against you, then you probably shouldnt be sleeping with them.
This reminds a little of the sodomy laws still on the books (I think)
in my home state. To my knowledge, the only thing these have been
used for in the past ten years or so has been as additional or reduced
charges in sexual assualt cases. Now it's surely a bad law, but it's
only being put to good use. (I am NOT in support of this law, and
would personally like to have it deemed unconstitutional, however the
above falls under the heading of 'making the best of a bad
situation'.)
Take care,
george
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My employer does not pay me enough to speak for them. I can only
afford to speak for myself.