Female Rapists
Kiralynne
wev...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) wrote:
>Kiralynne <call...@genesisnetwork.net> writes:
>>Here in Southern California we had a odd, tragically funny,
>>legal case. A high school football coach solicited sex
>>for his wife from his team members. She is attractive.
>>Some of them took him up on it, repeatedly.
>This was at Hemet High.
> In our lovely nestled valley,
> mumble,mumble mumble
> Hail to thee, our Alma Matter
> Hail to Hemet High.
(snipped)
>
>It wasn't rape under the law as it existed at the time. It is
>classic sexual harassment though.
>The person in power, the coach, makes a sexual demand on the player.
>The obvious repercussion if student had refused the coach's
>demand was that his position on the team would be in jeopardy.
=========
Yeah. Good point. It would be SO interesting to get right
inside the case and the lives of all involved to know
what really happened.
On one side we have teenage boys ready to screw anything
that moves being offered a beautiful older woman for any
kind of sex they want...
Then the flip side is a coach using persuasion to get the
boys to do his wife..
I kinda think maybe a toss up.. I could see where a
teenage boy would cream his jeans just getting the
offer. Others might say, "Can I do that RIGHT NOW?"
Others.. hmm.. might be a little shy about it.
Crazy crazy world...
K =)
Alan Madsen
Bill Hartwell (whar...@nyx.net) wrote:
: In article <andersonD...@netcom.com>, ande...@netcom.com says...
: >>whar...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (William Hartwell) wrote:
: >>I'm also a victim. I was sexually assaulted by a woman,
: >>maybe 10 feet from the registration table at "The World's
: >>Only FEMINIST (science fiction) Convention" (Quote from
: >>WisCon's own brochures), with people walking by and turning
: >>their heads so they wouldn't have to witness.
: >>When I tried to get help from convention security, they
: >>laughed. When I tried to get help from the police, they
: >>told me that if my assailant chose to claim I had assaulted
: >>her, they would be required to arrest me - regardless of wit-
: >>nesses.
: >I'm curious about this. If you're willing to post, I'm willing
: >to read.
: What happened was, at about 6:30 on Saturday night, during the 1987
: edition of WisCon, I was hanging about in the entry hall, near the
: registration table, waiting for the crew to open up the banquet hall for
: the masquerade.
: A woman I thought of as a friend (named Alison) noticed me and wandered
: over to where I was. When she got within 4 or 5 feet of me, I could
: smell that she had been drinking. Knowing how crazy she gets when drunk,
: I tried to slip away. Unfortunately, due to the crowd and arrangement of
: furniture, I got backed into a corner.
: She took advantage of my position, and her greater size (at the time, she
: outweighed me by nearly 50 pounds) to push me down in the corner and
: begin groping me. By the time her boyfriend showed up, the only thing
: that had kept her from jumping on and fucking me right there in the
: hallway was the fact that nothing she did could induce me to get hard
: enough to suit her.
: Alison's boyfriend (Chris) apologized for her behavior, explaining 'she
: gets like that when she's drunk'. Meanwhile, I was trying to put my
: clothing back into some semblence of order. Since the registration table
: was about 10' a way (if that), I went straight there and asked why they
: didn't call convention security. They told me that I should consider
: myself lucky to have gotten that kind of attention, and I should have
: just laid back and enjoyed it. This was, to say the least, insensitive.
: There was a City of Madison police officer in the building (it seems the
: management of the hotel wanted the cops to check occasionally for them
: weird SF fans), so I talked with the officer and described to her what
: had happened. She informed me that if I wanted to push it, she would
: investigate, but that if Alison chose to claim that I had assaulted her,
: instead of vice-versa, she would be obligated to arrest me.
: That, in a nutshell, is what happened to me personally. More details are
: a bit unpleasant to discuss.
lets see...
you were in a "crowd"... a woman, 50 lbs heaver than you and
so drunk that you could smell she had been drinking at 4 or 5
feet overpowers you and near rapes you, and no one turned to
help you...?
you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
no one helped you...?
you were in a crowd so thick that you were cornered, yet
eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
so they wouldn't have to witness."...
right...
frankly rev. i don't buy it...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Bill Hartwell
In article <544jpn$q...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org says...
>you were in a "crowd"... a woman, 50 lbs heaver than you and
>so drunk that you could smell she had been drinking at 4 or 5
>feet overpowers you and near rapes you, and no one turned to
>help you...?
That's right.
>
>you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
>a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
>no one helped you...?
Tell you what. Why don't you ask a woman who's been in a similar situation
what it's like, since you obviously choose not to believe me.
>
>you were in a crowd so thick that you were cornered, yet
>eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
>so they wouldn't have to witness."...
>
Re-read what I said. I was cornered. LITERALLY. As in, the corner of the
room, where there were walls on two sides. Since it was the entry space to
the second floor of the hotel, there were doors in all four walls, three of
which had heavy traffic through them.
>
>right...
>
>frankly rev. i don't buy it...
>
Frankly, alan, you're the kind of putz that makes it impossible for victims of
assault to get justice. It was obvious from your first post that you didn't
WANT to believe it, and you would do anything in your power to not believe it.
Well, ain't reality a bitch? It happens, whether you believe it or not.
Alan Madsen
Bill Hartwell (whar...@nyx.net) wrote:
: >
: >frankly rev. i don't buy it...
: Frankly, alan, you're the kind of putz that makes it impossible for victims of
: assault to get justice. It was obvious from your first post that you didn't
: WANT to believe it, and you would do anything in your power to not believe it.
: Well, ain't reality a bitch? It happens, whether you believe it or not.
yup...
such truth allows outragous claim, itself not true...
you, here: name call, assign guilt, attack motive, and
integrety prior to couching your truth...
that is also true...
one can believe it your method...
Rodney Longhurst
ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
>you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
>a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
>no one helped you...?
In a large proportion of (female) rape cases, the victim is too terrified
to move or call out.
>you were in a crowd so thick that you were cornered, yet
>eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
>so they wouldn't have to witness."...
A minor point, not inconceivable...
>frankly rev. i don't buy it...
Yes, it does appear somewhat fraudulant, but in the interests of
sensitivity it would be better not to claim "bullshit", as some have done.
Rodney
Bill Hartwell
Since my primary news server is down, I've had to borrow a friend's account in
order to read, let alone post.
In article <andersonD...@netcom.com>, ande...@netcom.com says...
>
>Please see where I've put the followup. I don't believe this
>discussion needs to be in all these ngs.
>
>>>whar...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (William Hartwell) wrote:
>
>>>>I'm also a victim. I was sexually assaulted by a woman,
>>maybe 10 feet
>>>>from the registration table at "The World's Only FEMINIST
>>(science
>>>>fiction) Convention" (Quote from WisCon's own brochures),
>>with people
>>>>walking by and turning their heads so they wouldn't have
>>to witness.
>>>>When I tried to get help from convention security, they
>>laughed. When I
>>>>tried to get help from the police, they told me that if my
>>assailant
>>>>chose to claim I had assaulted her, they would be required
>>to arrest me
>>>>-- regardless of witnesses.
--
Rev. Bill Hartwell whar...@nyx.net
Hm Ntrw, Wab Anpw, Anpwhotep http://www.nyx.net/~whartwel
By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay to the recipient a reading fee of $10/line.
Rob
whar...@nyx.net (Bill Hartwell) wrote:
>In article <544jpn$q...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org says...
>
>>you were in a "crowd"... a woman, 50 lbs heaver than you and
>>so drunk that you could smell she had been drinking at 4 or 5
>>feet overpowers you and near rapes you, and no one turned to
>>help you...?
>
>That's right.
>
>>
>>a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
>>no one helped you...?
>
>what it's like, since you obviously choose not to believe me.
>
>>
>>so they wouldn't have to witness."...
>>
>
>Re-read what I said. I was cornered. LITERALLY. As in, the corner of the
>room, where there were walls on two sides. Since it was the entry space to
>the second floor of the hotel, there were doors in all four walls, three of
>which had heavy traffic through them.
>
>
>>
>>right...
>>
>>
>
>assault to get justice. It was obvious from your first post that you didn't
>WANT to believe it, and you would do anything in your power to not believe it.
>Well, ain't reality a bitch? It happens, whether you believe it or not.
>
Bill try not to take Alan's remarks seriously, he is a prize cunt who
believes he is the holder of all truth, when infact he is an incoherent
imbeceile. He is best ingnored!!!
Rob
Rob
rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Rodney Longhurst) wrote:
>ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
>
>>you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
>>a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
>>no one helped you...?
>
>to move or call out.
>
>>eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
>>so they wouldn't have to witness."...
>
>
>
>sensitivity it would be better not to claim "bullshit", as some have done.
Well what the fuck are you claiming then Rodney? For christ sake you've
just made the same implication claiming it the post appeared somewhat
fraudulant!!! The only reason you claim such is that it is a man as
oppossed to a women posting and as a feminist man that doesn't suit your
agenda.
Rob
>Rodney
>
Alan Madsen
: >you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
: >a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
: >no one helped you...?
: In a large proportion of (female) rape cases, the victim is too terrified
: to move or call out.
yup, but with overwhelming strength, privacy, and weapons used
in commission - likely i wouldn't either...
: >you were in a crowd so thick that you were cornered, yet
: >eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
: >so they wouldn't have to witness."...
: A minor point, not inconceivable...
"people walking by"...
: >frankly rev. i don't buy it...
: Yes, it does appear somewhat fraudulant, but in the interests of
: sensitivity it would be better not to claim "bullshit", as some have done.
: Rodney
don't use the word...
Alan Madsen
Rob (j921...@wlv.ac.uk) wrote:
<snip>
: Bill try not to take Alan's remarks seriously, he is a prize cunt who
: believes he is the holder of all truth, when infact he is an incoherent
: imbeceile. He is best ingnored!!!
especially when the only alternative is simple (emphasis on simple)
aspersion...
Jok...@no.mail
Rob <j921...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
>whar...@nyx.net (Bill Hartwell) wrote:
>>In article <544jpn$q...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org says...
>>
>>>you were in a "crowd"... a woman, 50 lbs heaver than you and
>>>so drunk that you could smell she had been drinking at 4 or 5
>>>feet overpowers you and near rapes you, and no one turned to
>>>help you...?
>>
>>That's right.
>>
>>>
>>>you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
>>>a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
>>>no one helped you...?
>>
>>Tell you what. Why don't you ask a woman who's been in a similar situation
>>what it's like, since you obviously choose not to believe me.
>>
>>>
>>>you were in a crowd so thick that you were cornered, yet
>>>eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
>>>so they wouldn't have to witness."...
>>>
>>
>>Re-read what I said. I was cornered. LITERALLY. As in, the corner of the
>>room, where there were walls on two sides. Since it was the entry space to
>>the second floor of the hotel, there were doors in all four walls, three of
>>which had heavy traffic through them.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>right...
>>>
>>>frankly rev. i don't buy it...
>>>
>>
>>Frankly, alan, you're the kind of putz that makes it impossible for victims of
>>assault to get justice. It was obvious from your first post that you didn't
>>WANT to believe it, and you would do anything in your power to not believe it.
>>Well, ain't reality a bitch? It happens, whether you believe it or not.
>>
>Bill try not to take Alan's remarks seriously, he is a prize cunt who
>believes he is the holder of all truth, when infact he is an incoherent
>imbeceile. He is best ingnored!!!
>Rob
We learned much about you when you chose to use "cunt" as a
pejorative.
Stuart Birks
Jok...@no.mail wrote:
>Rob <j921...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Bill try not to take Alan's remarks seriously, he is a prize cunt who
>>believes he is the holder of all truth, when infact he is an incoherent
>>imbeceile. He is best ingnored!!!
>We learned much about you when you chose to use "cunt" as a
>pejorative.
You learned that he is from the UK, but you could have figured that out
from his email address. Or are you drawing some other conclusion without
taking into account geographical differences?
Stuart
Alan Madsen
TRIX (kke...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: Alan Madsen (ama...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: : Bill Hartwell (whar...@nyx.net) wrote:
: : : That, in a nutshell, is what happened to me personally. More details are
: : : a bit unpleasant to discuss.
: : lets see...
: : you were in a "crowd"... a woman, 50 lbs heaver than you and
: : so drunk that you could smell she had been drinking at 4 or 5
: : feet overpowers you and near rapes you, and no one turned to
: : help you...?
: : you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
: : a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
: : no one helped you...?
: : you were in a crowd so thick that you were cornered, yet
: : eariler said "with people walking by and turning their heads
: : so they wouldn't have to witness."...
: : right...
: : frankly rev. i don't buy it...
: I'm sorry, Alan, but I *do* buy it. It is possible for a woman to
: outsize and overpower a man. I used to live next to a vacant lot, and
: I had to call the police once to stop a 300 pound woman from beating
: up on a skinny frail man.
: If this man was assaulted, and truly felt threatened by this woman, he
: didn't "let" her do it. Precisely because people assume that men
: cannot be victims is why he was most likely ignored in a room full of
: people.
: I don't see what is so terribly implausible about this story.
i am not about to explain further on hartwell... if it is fabrication,
as i believe (but do not say i know), its intent would be served to do
so...
Alan Madsen
: : lets see...
: : right...
as i believe, its intent would be served to do so...
Mark Evans
: >a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
: >no one helped you...?
:
: to move or call out.
Why do you think it should be different if the victim is male, if anything
they have MORE reasons to keep quiet.
Bill Hartwell
In article <544tdl$r...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org says...
>
You know, it doesn't really matter what he said. He's demonstrated his true
nature quite adequately to justify putting him in my killfile right next to
Kiralynne.
<plonk>
Bill Hartwell
In article <545ru3$r...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, kke...@unlinfo.unl.edu says...
>I'm sorry, Alan, but I *do* buy it. It is possible for a woman to
>outsize and overpower a man. I used to live next to a vacant lot, and
>I had to call the police once to stop a 300 pound woman from beating
>up on a skinny frail man.
>
>If this man was assaulted, and truly felt threatened by this woman, he
>didn't "let" her do it. Precisely because people assume that men
>cannot be victims is why he was most likely ignored in a room full of
>people.
>
>I don't see what is so terribly implausible about this story.
Thank you, TRIX. Quite frankly, Mr. Madsen's response is not unexpected.
I've seen, and experienced, it before. I would not wish my experience on my
worst enemy. Not only my experience being assaulted by my so-called "friend",
but also the kind of abuse and harassment you receive by admitting to having
been assaulted. I'm only one person, and if the responses I've received are
typical of those that sexual assault victims get, it's a wonder ANY assaults
get prosecuted.
Bill
Rodney Longhurst
I never suggested that, I only qualified my statement as applying to females
as that is the overwhelming majority of rape. The whole point was to
suggest that he could have been too scared to do anything.
Rodney
Rob
You still implied that the story was untrue, when you questioned it's
feasibilty. I strongly doubt you would made the same implication had a
female poster claimed to have been sexual assaulted.
Mark Evans
Rodney Longhurst (rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
: ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
: >Rodney Longhurst (rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
: >: ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
:
: >:>you let a drunk woman grope you without asking for help from
: >:>a crowd so thick that you could not move away, or, asking help
: >:>no one helped you...?
:
: >: In a large proportion of (female) rape cases, the victim is too terrified
: >: to move or call out.
:
: >Why do you think it should be different if the victim is male, if anything
: >they have MORE reasons to keep quiet.
:
: I never suggested that, I only qualified my statement as applying to females
: as that is the overwhelming majority of rape. The whole point was to
Which is a statement you simply cannot make, because of the LOW reporting
level. You can claim that women are the majority of *recorded* rape
victims. However if you are going to make any claims about incidence
then you will first have to ensure that the data you are using is
not simply showing the biases of the methods used to gather it.
i.e. If you look through a red piece of glass how certain can you
be in claiming "most light is red"...
: suggest that he could have been too scared to do anything.
:
: Rodney
:
Rodney Longhurst
Rob <J921...@wlv.ac.uk> writes:
>rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Rodney Longhurst) wrote:
>>ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>>Rodney Longhurst (rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
>>>: In a large proportion of (female) rape cases, the victim is too terrified
>>>: to move or call out.
>>>Why do you think it should be different if the victim is male, if anything
>>>they have MORE reasons to keep quiet.
>>I never suggested that, I only qualified my statement as applying to females
>>as that is the overwhelming majority of rape. The whole point was to
>>suggest that he could have been too scared to do anything.
>You still implied that the story was untrue, when you questioned it's
>feasibilty. I strongly doubt you would made the same implication had a
>female poster claimed to have been sexual assaulted.
Not here I didn't, here I was giving a reason as to why it could be true.
Afterwards I suggested that it appeared fraudulant, and yes, I would be
more likely to believe it were it a female claiming rape. Two reasons, the
first is that men, IMO, are more likely to attempt to defend themselves,
and the second is that I know nothing of the guy who posted the story, and
the majority of anti-feminists (if he is one, I am assuming) I do not
believe are so ethical as to shun making up stories to prove a point.
But that's if I had to bet my life on it either way, as is its not fair
to judge.
Rodney
William Hartwell
In article <54haav$c...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
Rodney Longhurst <rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Rob <J921...@wlv.ac.uk> writes:
>>rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Rodney Longhurst) wrote:
>>>ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>>>Rodney Longhurst (rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
>
>>>>: In a large proportion of (female) rape cases, the victim is too terrified
>>>>: to move or call out.
>
>>>>Why do you think it should be different if the victim is male, if anything
>>>>they have MORE reasons to keep quiet.
>
>>>I never suggested that, I only qualified my statement as applying to females
>>>as that is the overwhelming majority of rape. The whole point was to
>>>suggest that he could have been too scared to do anything.
>
>>You still implied that the story was untrue, when you questioned it's
>>feasibilty. I strongly doubt you would made the same implication had a
>>female poster claimed to have been sexual assaulted.
>
>Not here I didn't, here I was giving a reason as to why it could be true.
>Afterwards I suggested that it appeared fraudulant, and yes, I would be
>more likely to believe it were it a female claiming rape. Two reasons, the
>first is that men, IMO, are more likely to attempt to defend themselves,
Against women? I don't know about you, but where I grew up, I was taught
that a gentleman does NOT, under ANY circumstances, strike a lady.
>and the second is that I know nothing of the guy who posted the story, and
>the majority of anti-feminists (if he is one, I am assuming) I do not
>believe are so ethical as to shun making up stories to prove a point.
How kind of you to assume...I will only say that your assumptions are
your own, regardless of their relationship to reality, but the only
people who know me in real life who have ever accused me of being
anti-feminist are people like alan madsen and Kiralynne. But then again,
they're in good company. I was once accused of being an Antichrist by
Steve Winter, a racist by Dan Gannon, a homosexual recruiter (whatever
that is) by Daniel J. Karnes, and a terrorist by Serdar Argic (or someone
claiming to be Serdar Argic, at least). The way I figure, I'm pissing
off the right kind of people, so I must be doing *something* right.
Anpwhotep
William Hartwell
In article <54et40$a...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
Rodney Longhurst <rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>Rodney Longhurst (rl...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
>
>>: In a large proportion of (female) rape cases, the victim is too terrified
>>: to move or call out.
>
>>Why do you think it should be different if the victim is male, if anything
>>they have MORE reasons to keep quiet.
>
>I never suggested that, I only qualified my statement as applying to females
>as that is the overwhelming majority of rape. The whole point was to
>suggest that he could have been too scared to do anything.
...at least, it's the overwhelming majority of *reported* rapes. And, by
the way, you're absolutely right. When faced with an assailant who was
50 pounds heavier than me, and visibly inebriated, once I was backed into
a corner, I was....well, *frozen* is the only way I can think of to
describe it. I was so scared that I actually felt the strength drain out
of me like I've only felt otherwise (since leaving home 17 years ago) in
nightmares and memories.
ky...@usa.net
ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) wrote:
>William Tempest (wi...@s-alchemy.com) wrote:
>: In article <326FB5F6.3172@2.3>, Andy Taylor <1@2.3> wrote:
>:
>: > > Is not a persons (clothed) genitals being struck a "sexual assault".
>: >
>: > Definitely. A woman would say the same thing if it happened to her.
>:
>: oh... I meant to answer this one before-- forgot... I should think most
>: women would any way... as to whether it officially counts as a sexual
>: assault I really don't know... does a sexual assault mean only advances
>Well the Bobbit case was not considered sexual assult...
>So some strange definitions exist.
I would not consider that sexual assault, but assault on sexual parts.
Alan Madsen
ky...@usa.net wrote:
: ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) wrote:
were one to consider assault on "sexual parts", then every
male who kicks or knees anothers groin is up for sexual assault...
clearly, intent to use sex organs as sex organs (which includes
punititve rape - where sexual pleasure is not necessarly the pri-
mary object of the rape) is sexual assault...
William Hartwell
In article <paynerE0...@netcom.com>, Rich Payne <pay...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>
>A: The victim.
>
If you believe that, you don't comprehend the nature of rape at all.
Which isn't surprising, given the propaganda that's been so heavily
spread on the topic.
William Tempest
> Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>
> A: The victim.
>
>
> Rich
as always we have some *fun* people to listen to around here...
aaaaahhh geeeeee....
--
What luck for the rulers that men (and women) do not think...
Adolph Hitler (hopefully commenting on the circumstances that brought him to power)
phyr...@usa.net
wi...@s-alchemy.com (William Tempest) wrote:
>In article <552g3f$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>> Sexual assault and rape is, IMO a form of
>> hate crime, and should be judged accordingly.
>>
>> Lefty
>although not always the case, incidents of rape most often would turn out
>to be "lust crimes" in my opinion. I should think most people are driven
>to do it due to sexual drive and lack of morality rather than hate for a
>sex/ race etc.
Sexual drive can be "handled." The sexual forcing on one person upon
another is not a biological need. It is psychological. It is based
in sexual energies (as are most anything if you ask Freud) coupled
with a strong need to control, a urgent selfish rage. It is violence.
William Hartwell
In article <555150$3...@costarica.earthlink.net>, <any...@anywhere.usa> wrote:
>whar...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (William Hartwell) wrote:
>
>:In article <paynerE0...@netcom.com>, Rich Payne <pay...@netcom.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>:>
>:>A: The victim.
>
>:spread on the topic.
>
>:Anpwhotep
>
>self-appointed authority types are such a waste of bandwidth.
>
>
Nope. Not an authority on most things. Simply someone who was the victim
of a sexual assault by a female, and therefore knows FROM PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE that females are not, by definition, the victim.
any...@anywhere.usa
Mike Ganopoulos
any...@anywhere.usa wrote:
: LOL. Excellent irony, Rich! You've just summed up feminism.
: pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) wrote:
: :Q: What do you call a female rapist?
: :A: The victim.
It reminds me of that classic legend about a man and a woman who
live next door to one another in houses that are close together.
One day, the man is standing naked in his house, near his window, where
the woman can see him. She calls up the police and has him arrested for
exposing himself.
Later in time, she is walking around naked in her house, the man
sees her and decides to get revenge by calling the police to report her
exposing herself. The police promptly show up at his door to arrest him
again, this time for being a "Peeping Tom".
Regards,
Mike Ganopoulos
http://www.emi.net/~mg655321
Alan Madsen
Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
excellent example of anti-feminst what passes for thinking...
flashers do no exist, and those who invade privacy do not
exist, it is a sexist conspiracy..
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55aqrc$2...@amanda.dorsai.org> ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen)
writes:
>Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
>: any...@anywhere.usa wrote:
>: : LOL. Excellent irony, Rich! You've just summed up feminism.
>: : pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) wrote:
>: : :Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>: : :A: The victim.
>
>: It reminds me of that classic legend about a man and a woman
who live next door to one another in houses that are close together.
>: One day, the man is standing naked in his house, near his window,
where>: the woman can see him. She calls up the police and has him
arrested for>: exposing himself.
>
>: Later in time, she is walking around naked in her house, the
man >: sees her and decides to get revenge by calling the police to
report her >: exposing herself. The police promptly show up at his door
to arrest him : again, this time for being a "Peeping Tom".
----
This is a fine example of an "old husband's tale"....the truth of
the matter would depend, in reality, on the degree of trespass of
the peeping tom of either gender. :]
Lefty
Mike Ganopoulos
Alan Madsen (ama...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
: : any...@anywhere.usa wrote:
: : : LOL. Excellent irony, Rich! You've just summed up feminism.
: : : pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) wrote:
: : : :Q: What do you call a female rapist?
: : : :A: The victim.
: : It reminds me of that classic legend about a man and a woman who
: : live next door to one another in houses that are close together.
: : One day, the man is standing naked in his house, near his window, where
: : the woman can see him. She calls up the police and has him arrested for
: : exposing himself.
: : Later in time, she is walking around naked in her house, the man
: : sees her and decides to get revenge by calling the police to report her
: : exposing herself. The police promptly show up at his door to arrest him
: : again, this time for being a "Peeping Tom".
: excellent example of anti-feminst what passes for thinking...
: flashers do no exist, and those who invade privacy do not
: exist, it is a sexist conspiracy..
Where did I say that? In the aforementioned story, the woman first
invaded the guy's privacy by looking in his window, and then was indecent
by exposing herself. Is that so hard to understand?
Alan Madsen
Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
what makes you think your story any the more real
than my impression of it...?
that may be a little harder to understand, but do try...
William Tempest
In article <55aqrc$2...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org (Alan
Madsen) wrote:
Note: this post is directed at more than one person since I used quotes
derived from multiple sources!
> ----
> This is a fine example of an "old husband's tale"....the truth of
> the matter would depend, in reality, on the degree of trespass of
> the peeping tom of either gender. :]
that would be nice any way :(!
> Lefty
> >excellent example of anti-feminst what passes for thinking...
and where other than here are you finding these anti feminist ways of
thinking?! not in many of them are mainstream society I would assume...
and if you do see some I should think the amount is rather small since I
look and I can't find much of em!
> >flashers do no exist, and those who invade privacy do not
> >exist, it is a sexist conspiracy..
what the hell are you talking about?!? OK sure! no one can take there
clothes off and no one can attempt to secretly watch them! of course this
must be physically impossible right?! please explain to mean what you
mean.
William Tempest
some body wrote:
> >I don't understand this. Are we - men and women - to think that
> >men who rape love the people they're raping?
there is a difference between love and lust you know...
> >I agree with Carol here. I don't care about the "sexual drive"
> >of the man or woman who rapes. They don't have the right to
> >force someone into having sex.
actually this argument is about what motivates rape... no one here has
argued that some one has the right to force sex upon another.
Jerome Schroeder
On 1 Nov 1996 14:53:36 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
wrote:
>In <55aqrc$2...@amanda.dorsai.org> ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen)
>writes:
>>
>>Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
>>: any...@anywhere.usa wrote:
>>: : LOL. Excellent irony, Rich! You've just summed up feminism.
>>: : pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) wrote:
>>: : :Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>>: : :A: The victim.
>>
>>: It reminds me of that classic legend about a man and a woman
>who live next door to one another in houses that are close together.
>>: One day, the man is standing naked in his house, near his window,
>where>: the woman can see him. She calls up the police and has him
>arrested for>: exposing himself.
>>
>>: Later in time, she is walking around naked in her house, the
>man >: sees her and decides to get revenge by calling the police to
>report her >: exposing herself. The police promptly show up at his door
>to arrest him : again, this time for being a "Peeping Tom".
>
> ----
> This is a fine example of an "old husband's tale"....the truth of
> the matter would depend, in reality, on the degree of trespass of
> the peeping tom of either gender. :]
>
> Lefty
>>
I know of one case at a major software firm in the Seattle area. They
often hired college students as interns. One day one of them came
into our office stammering with a problem. A big good looking guy, he
was fairly young and inexperienced.
It seems that one of our female managers, around 30, would invite him
into her office, draw the blinds and insist that he do "nice nice"
with her.
The 3 of us, male chauvenists all, asked: "So what's the problem?"
In fact there is a problem. No one, male or female, should use their
positon of authority to abuse their subordinates.
Jerry
David B. Greene
jer...@wolfenet.com (Jerome Schroeder) says:
>(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
>>>Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
>>>: any...@anywhere.usa wrote:
>>>: : LOL. Excellent irony, Rich! You've just summed up feminism.
>>>: : pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) wrote:
>>>: : :Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>>>: : :A: The victim.
>>>
>>>: It reminds me of that classic legend about a man and a woman who
>>>: live next door to one another in houses that are close together.
>>>: One day, the man is standing naked in his house, near his window,
>>>: where the woman can see him. She calls up the police and has him
>>>: arrested for exposing himself.
>>>
>>>: Later in time, she is walking around naked in her house, the man
>>>: sees her and decides to get revenge by calling the police to report
>>>: her exposing herself. The police promptly show up at his door to
>>>: arrest him again, this time for being a "Peeping Tom".
>>
>> This is a fine example of an "old husband's tale"....the truth of
>> the matter would depend, in reality, on the degree of trespass of
>> the peeping tom of either gender. :]
>>
>I know of one case at a major software firm in the Seattle area. They
>often hired college students as interns. One day one of them came
>into our office stammering with a problem. A big good looking guy, he
>was fairly young and inexperienced.
>
>It seems that one of our female managers, around 30, would invite him
>into her office, draw the blinds and insist that he do "nice nice"
>with her.
>
>The 3 of us, male chauvenists all, asked: "So what's the problem?"
>
>In fact there is a problem. No one, male or female, should use their
>positon of authority to abuse their subordinates.
>
>Jerry
So which was it? Microsoft or Aldus?
Dave Greene
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <328a933f...@news1.wolfenet.com> jer...@wolfenet.com (Jerome>>In <55aqrc$2...@amanda.dorsai.org> ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
>>>: any...@anywhere.usa wrote:
>>>: : LOL. Excellent irony, Rich! You've just summed up feminism.
>>>: : pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) wrote:
>>>: : :Q: What do you call a female rapist?
>>>: : :A: The victim.
>>>
>>>: It reminds me of that classic legend about a man and a woman
>>who live next door to one another in houses that are close together.
>>>: One day, the man is standing naked in his house, near his window,
>>where>: the woman can see him. She calls up the police and has him
>>arrested for>: exposing himself.
>>>
>>>: Later in time, she is walking around naked in her house, the
>>man >: sees her and decides to get revenge by calling the police to
>>report her >: exposing herself. The police promptly show up at his
door>to arrest him : again, this time for being a "Peeping Tom".
>>
>> This is a fine example of an "old husband's tale"....the truth of
>> the matter would depend, in reality, on the degree of trespass of
>> the peeping tom of either gender. :]
>>
>>>
>I know of one case at a major software firm in the Seattle area. They
>often hired college students as interns. One day one of them came
>into our office stammering with a problem. A big good looking guy, he
>was fairly young and inexperienced.
>
>It seems that one of our female managers, around 30, would invite him
>into her office, draw the blinds and insist that he do "nice nice"
>with her.
>
>The 3 of us, male chauvenists all, asked: "So what's the problem?"
>
>In fact there is a problem. No one, male or female, should use their
>positon of authority to abuse their subordinates.
>
>Jerry
-----
Yes, there IS a problem. "Authority" is no excuse to abuse it.
This smacks of harassment.
Lefty
Jubal Harshaw
george gerret wrote:
>
> I laughed at this posting!
>
> I will give you one example of a woman raping a man.
> I read once the following story:
> A woman in America got the hots for a certain Mormon
> man. She followed him to England. She tied him to a
> bed, stripped and raped him.
>
> No, women don't usualy rape men because a) men are
> physically stronger, b) it is hard to get the victim
> to have an erection during rape and c) women usualy
> have other motives with men than sexual direct lust.
>
> Good one!
> George ;)
>
> Pohl Longsine wrote:
> >
> > Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> > >da...@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) writes:
> > >>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) says:
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a difference between "feelings" and "motive". As a
> > >>> being, I want to know the motives for men who rape;
> > >>
> > >>And you care naught about the motives of women who rape?
> > >
> > >Could you provide me a list of names of women who have been
> > >convicted of rape; then I will answer your question.
> >
> > Could you show me a man who would report the crime? Then I'll
> > answer yours.
> >
> > --
> > po...@screaming.org |"Reality is that which, when you stop believing
> > http://screaming.org/ | in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
> > ------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
> > Linux | NeXT | Be | Java| Friends don't let friends use windoze.
Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
Jubal
--
Jubal Harshaw
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> -----
> If there are no females rapists, legally, then there are no female
> rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually abuse or
> sexually assault is another matter.
> -----
Are you saying that the only definition of a crime is one in which the
criminal is convicted? Does that mean that Nicole Simpson wasn't
murdered? If a man is raped by a woman, that makes her a rapist,
whether she is convicted of the crime or not. The absence of
convictions does not betray the absence of the crime. After all how
many KKK members were convicted of lynching blacks? Is it your point
that lynching of blacks didn't occur? I think that this is faulty
logic.
I'm not trying to assert that women are rapists, but just pointing out
that your logic is faulty.
>
> Lefty
> >
> >--
Jubal
Stephanie Smith
In article <328ED8...@ix.netcom.com>, phi...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> -----
>> If there are no females rapists, legally, then there are no female
>> rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually abuse or
>> sexually assault is another matter.
>> -----
>
>Are you saying that the only definition of a crime is one in which the
>criminal is convicted? Does that mean that Nicole Simpson wasn't
>murdered? If a man is raped by a woman, that makes her a rapist,
>whether she is convicted of the crime or not. The absence of
>convictions does not betray the absence of the crime. After all how
>many KKK members were convicted of lynching blacks? Is it your point
>that lynching of blacks didn't occur? I think that this is faulty
>logic.
Actually, I think she's trying to make an even more technical point. She
wants to argue that since "rape" traditionally defined included only the
rape of a woman by a man not her husband, that rapist only refers to a
man who rapes a woman. Many of the states that have amended the statutes
to make them sex-neutral (though you don't have to do this) have also
renamed the crime "sexual assault" as part of the trend to treat it as a
violent crime rather than a sex crime. Some may have kept the name
"rape" for the crime -- there is no reason they couldn't, I just don't
know the rape laws in every state -- but at any rate this technicality
(the changing of the name from rape to sexual assault) hardly leads to
Lefty's conclusion.
First, under Lefty's logic (relying on the traditional definition),
husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of the
traditional definition of that crime).
Also, it would mean that in many states which have changed the name to
sexual assault, Illinois for example, no one is a rapist. Yet, the claim
that no one is raped in Illinois and there are no rapists here is clearly
ridiculous. (Though Mayor Daley might appreciate Lefty's argument as
part of a campaign to attract tourists.)
In common speech and understanding, anyone who does the crime of sexual
assault is known as a rapist. Sexual assaulter just doesn't have the
same ring, yet. (And many states call murder "criminal homocide". Would
Lefty argue that in those states there are no murderers?)
In fact, as explained by a NY court: "the statute applies to males who
forcibly rape females but does not apply to females who forcibly rape
males..." (_People v. Liberta_) Note the use of the term "rape" applied
to the conduct of women toward men, despite the technical lack of
inclusion of women in the statute.
And finally, if Lefty wants to make so technical a claim, she has reduced
her argument to a pointless one. She seems to be saying, "women don't
rape because even if they do we call it something different." So? It's
still equally culpable behavior, isn't it? (And of course this brings up
the question of why call it something different, which she is wrong in
claiming all states do.)
Stephanie
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <328D64...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
>subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
>associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
>systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
>
>Jubal
>
>--
If testosterone makes men violent, then estrogen makes women violent.
Both sexes can be violent.
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Zardoz
Jubal Harshaw wrote:
>
> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> > Lefty
> > >
> I'm not trying to assert that women are rapists, but just pointing out
> that your logic is faulty.
You seem to be confusing logic with Lefty. Big mistake. Both start with
"L" but after that nothing similar.
Blessed Be
ZardoZ
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not represent the
opinions or policy of any organization.
All material is the copyright property of the author and may not be
reproduced in any manner without specific permission.
Jubal Harshaw
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <328ED9...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >>
> >> In <56hv3q$m...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
> csl...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
> >> (Kirk Job Sluder) writes:
> >> >
> >> >In article <56hsj2$5...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> >Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> -----
> >> >> Would it be possible for you to provide me a list of female
> >> rapists where the woman wasn't arrested on grounds of conspiracy?
> >> >
> >> >When you consider that neither the law, the police or prosecuting
> >> >attorneys have historically considered women capable of violent
> >> >sexual assault, it is going to be a difficult search. You are
> >> >talking a small number of total cases with most likely the same
> >> >if not worse problems in under-reporting.
> >> >
> >> >So no, I don't think it is possible for anyone to provide those
> >> >lists given the difficulties in finding that needle in the
> haystack.
> >> >
> >> >Considering that we have women capable of being astronauts, boxing,
> >> >setting records in just about any sport. Considering that women
> >> >have committed just about every other crime under the sun, then
> >> >the claim that women simply can not rape is inconcievable.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >What is your position on this. If you are saying that women are
> >> >rarely perpetrators of sexual assault, then I will agree with you.
> >> >If you are saying that women universially can not or do not commit
> >> >sexual assault, then I must say that statement contradicts my
> >> >experiences.
> >> >
> >> ------
> >> You and I agree that women are "rarely" perpetrators of sexual
> >> assault, AND that they can be guilty of sexual assault. The
> crime of rape should be, IMO gender specific. The crimes
> included with-in "sexual assault" should not. The reason I
> asked for a list of women who have committed rape was to show
> the reason for the discrimination between these sorts of crimes.
> Some people object to that discrimination. If you're asking me
> if women are capable of great crime, .....you bet your sweet
> bippy!
> >>
> >
> >Lefty,
> >The definition of rape in the American Heritage dictionary is "1. The
> >crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse."
> There>are many ways to "force" someone to have sexual intercourse.
> This>includes monetary coercion as well as brute force. It is the
> attitude>of the rapist that is violent. It is the dehumanization of
> the victim>that makes it rape. A woman who blackmails a male into
> sexual>intercourse is guilty of rape as well as sexual assault.
> >
> >> Lefty
>
> ------
> I do not agree.
You do not agree with what? The dictionary definition? Well you're a
far better person than I am, since I wouldn't dream of claiming my
definition of a word ought to replace the entry in all dictionaries. If
you do agree with the dictionary definition, as I would assume you do,
playful sarcasm aside, then you are introducing a new term which we
should separate from the English language definition.
> Each state defines the word rape by their own
> statues.
So shall we call the term "Individual States Defined Rape" or ISDR for
short? Now I can see how you would say that ISDR happens infrequently
or never. But we all have to harken to dictionaries when we discuss
things otherwise how can we converse if we chose to define terms as we
go. So what is it that you are saying? "Women never force a man to
submit to sexual intercourse". Is that your statement? Because I think
proof as to the falseness of that statement can be observed in all of
our experiences in life. See the term is submit to sexual intercourse.
It doesn't say penetrate with the ability to impregnate. It doesn't say
woman or man, it says "person" a rather all inclusive word. The
definition also is neutral as to the possibility of same sex rape. Now,
that we have defined terms... What are you saying? Please be precise
and make your statement in well defined terms using common references.
I know how high a level that you want to keep this discussion.
> Otherwise, the law would be so generic as to provide
> too much ambiguity.
Would you like to provide some analysis for this statement? I think
that the definition of sexual intercourse is well understood. I think
that the definition of forcing is well understood. So what is wrong
with forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse? How is it too
generic? You are pronouncing and not providing any analysis.
> There are a wide array of sexual offenses
> that may indeed may be sexual assault or abuse.
Yes and they might include photographing without permission as in child
pornography, or being a peeping tom, or a lot of other stuff which is
_not_ intercourse, but _is_ sexual abuse and assault.
> Rape should
> remain gender specific because only the female gets pregnant,
> and because a woman hasn't the required physical tools for the
> purpose of rape.
Rape as defined in the dictionary is gender neutral. How can it remain
gender specific. It never has been that way. Can you please explain
this statement?
> The act of rape is an act of aggression unlike
> any other form of aggression;
> in order to rape the body part of
> one person has the possibility of impregnating the body of the
> other.
Now let's look at this statement and do some analysis. If the rapist is
sterile, does that give him/her absolution? How can you defend such a
statement? It doesn't stand up to any critical analysis.
> There are also issues of disease. This is not necessarily
> true in cases of sexual assault.
>
> The reason the courts are going in more for "sexual assault" is
> because it more clearly defines the actual action between the
> parties. Certainly women can be convicted of many forms of sexual
> assault. If a man uses an object to sexually assault a woman, I
> would not call that rape; I would call it sexual assault. There
> is, IMO, a difference. Some people agree with me on that; others
> don't.
>
If the definition is forcing someone to submit to sexual intercourse,
then a woman who has a compatriot point a gun at the victim; forcing him
to submit to having sexual intercourse with her is guilty of rape. Why
can't you just climb down from your high horse and get sensible here.
Women can rape men. Maybe even they do rape men.
> Lefty
Jubal
Jubal Harshaw
Mark Evans wrote:
>
> James Buster (bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
> : In article <56htql$a...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,> : > Assault is a gender-neutral crime; look at the perpetra-
> : > tors; they are men AND women. How many female rapists can
> : > you name for me (that have not been convicted on charges of
> : > conspiracy...and I'm not talking statutory rape)?
> :
> : The definition of "gender-neutral crime" depends upon who the *victims* are,
> : not who the *perpetrators* are. I hardly consider a crime in which the
> : victims are overwhelmingly male to be *gender-neutral*. Similarly, rape
> : is not a gender-neutral crime. However, that doesn't make it a hate crime.
>
> Though to even be considered as gender-neutral the definition MUST itself
> be gender-neutral. "Rape" most fequently does not (in statute or in
> practice) have a gender neutral definition.
The definition of rape in the American Heritage dictionary is "1. The
crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse." This
definition, IMO, is gender neutral. So if the polit's have screwed
things up, so what else's new?
Jubal
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <56nck6$s...@usenet10.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
>In article <328ED8...@ix.netcom.com>, phi...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>>
>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>>
>>> -----
>>> If there are no females rapists, legally, then there are no
female rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually
abuse or sexually assault is another matter.
>>> -----
>>
>>Are you saying that the only definition of a crime is one in which
the>>criminal is convicted? Does that mean that Nicole Simpson wasn't
>>murdered? If a man is raped by a woman, that makes her a rapist,
>>whether she is convicted of the crime or not. The absence of
>>convictions does not betray the absence of the crime. After all how
>>many KKK members were convicted of lynching blacks? Is it your point
>>that lynching of blacks didn't occur? I think that this is faulty
>>logic.
>
>Actually, I think she's trying to make an even more technical point.
She >wants to argue that since "rape" traditionally defined included
only the >rape of a woman by a man not her husband, that rapist only
refers to a >man who rapes a woman.
------
Actually, you are both incorrect here. I'm trying to make the
point that rape is a crime that CAN result in pregnancy and, to
me, that makes it different from mere sexual assault; if you
disagree with my conclusion, why don't you speak to some women
in Bosnia who have already given birth to babies they didn't want
fathered by rapists that were NOT only interested in sexual
assault. To me, rape is a very speicific crime while sexual
assault can house many forms of sexual activity by both genders.
-------
Many of the states that have amended the statutes >to make them
sex-neutral (though you don't have to do this) have also >renamed the
crime "sexual assault" as part of the trend to treat it as a
>violent crime rather than a sex crime. Some may have kept the name
>"rape" for the crime -- there is no reason they couldn't, I just don't
>know the rape laws in every state -- but at any rate this technicality
>(the changing of the name from rape to sexual assault) hardly leads to
>Lefty's conclusion.
------
There are people who agree with my conclusion and those who
disagree; we certainly need not abide by "tradtional" common law
definitions for modern crimes; all I have suggested here is that
crime should be defined in a way so as to get the clearest picture
of the harm done. Robbery, for example, is much more serious than
larceny because of the addition threat of force; to me "rape" is
more serious than simple sexual assault becaust of the threat of
pregnancy. I know that idea doesn't appeal to you, and I can
understand why it doesn't. Also, my definition doesn't negate the
harm caused within "aggrevated sexual assault"....which can be much
worse, perhaps than the threat caused by rape; the two are just
more clearly defined.
----------
>
>First, under Lefty's logic (relying on the traditional definition),
>husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
>reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of the
>traditional definition of that crime).
------
Not really; I was NEVER relying on a "traditional" definition of
rape, and have no need to do so; we are free to redifine rape as
we see fit. You must be joking if you think that "I" think that
a burglary, to qualify as such, must take place at night (or to a
traditionally defined "dwelling" for that matter).
-------
>
>Also, it would mean that in many states which have changed the name to
>sexual assault, Illinois for example, no one is a rapist. Yet, the
claim >that no one is raped in Illinois and there are no rapists here
is clearly >ridiculous. (Though Mayor Daley might appreciate Lefty's
argument as >part of a campaign to attract tourists.)
-----
I think Mayor Daley and I would agree on many things; this may not
be one of them. :]
-----
>
>In common speech and understanding, anyone who does the crime of
sexual >assault is known as a rapist. Sexual assaulter just doesn't
have the >same ring, yet. (And many states call murder "criminal
homocide". Would >Lefty argue that in those states there are no
murderers?)
------
Words mean things. The perpetrator of a Criminal Homicide may not,
in fact BE a murderer, or the crime could be excused, justified or
mitigated. He/she could also be guilty of lesser in-cluded
offenses. That doesn't change the fact that there IS a deadguy;
it only changes the nature of the criminal liability. The same can
be said for the crime of rape.
------
>
>In fact, as explained by a NY court: "the statute applies to males who
>forcibly rape females but does not apply to females who forcibly rape
>males..." (_People v. Liberta_) Note the use of the term "rape"
applied >to the conduct of women toward men, despite the technical lack
of >inclusion of women in the statute.
-------
Well, until females have the capability to impregate their male
victim, rape accurately portrays, IMO, a gender specific crime. I
think this NY court has probably worded this holding in an
incorrect manner, and it won't be the first time :] If you read
old caselaw it is quite easy to find laughable holdings. Rape-like
conduct on the part of women would be impossible if the the dif-
ferentiation between rape and sexual assault was, in fact, the
ability to impregnate. It all depends on how we want the crime
defined. Certainly there are many ways to do that....even if we
decide to call it sexual assault, there might be ways to clearly
define the harm done. I would not object to that, provided it was
somehow included within whatever definition we choose. Rape is the
traditional word used, and I have seen nothing, as yet, to take its
place.
--------
>
>And finally, if Lefty wants to make so technical a claim, she has
reduced >her argument to a pointless one. She seems to be saying,
"women don't >rape because even if they do we call it something
different." So? It's still equally culpable behavior, isn't it? (And
of course this brings up the question of why call it something
different, which she is wrong in >claiming all states do.)
>
>Stephanie
-------
I think you have either misunderstood my position, OR I have not
clearly explained it. Rape and sexual assault may or may not be
equally culpable. It all depends on the circumstances. With rape,
IMO, comes the "ability" or "possibility" of impregnation (even if
the rapist is sterile, the woman who is being raped doesn't know
that fact, so the fear is still there, and the "intent" of the
rapist matters.....that might be a good way to determine the dif-
ference between rape and sexual assault. That, coupled with the
ability to inflict STDs/AIDs, etc. and the use of a sex organ to
perpetrate the crime, makes the crime of rape a bit different from
sexual assault. There may, in fact, be much better ways to provide
the type of differentiation in these crimes....and I would not
object to that.
Lefty
>
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <1996Nov18....@atl.com>,
David B. Greene <da...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com> says:
>>
>>Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
>>subjugation of one person by another.
>
>cases but it is an oversimplification I'm sure. If it were toatally
>true then a lot of "date rapes" would not be rapes.
Nonsense. The general thought process going on in a date-rapist's mind
is that after spending the money on the date, there is an entitlement to
sex.
>> In my view, it is most often
>>associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
>>systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
On hte other hand, rape isn't about hormones.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
Angilion
In article <56eanv$p...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
> G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
> : kr1...@aol.com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> : : Carol:
> : : Guese what MEN RAPE MEN TOO. WOMEN RAPE MEN, and women rape women too.
>
> kr* says "women rape men" (without the slightest proof of that)...
Would you like to email the numerous references that Ampersand supplied
to you for peer-reviewed studies showing that some women rape some men
to kr*? I'm sure you've kept them as you must have read them carefully
because you are obviously so concerned with being fair and unbiased.
Did you take that man up on his public offer to email you details
of his rape by a woman? Or did you just try hard to forget the
whole thing? My money's on the latter.
And that's just from memory in a thread I barely read.
Alan Madsen, you are a bigot and a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Greene
Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com> says:
>
>Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
>subjugation of one person by another.
That is the sanitized PC view of rape and is probably true in many
cases but it is an oversimplification I'm sure. If it were toatally
true then a lot of "date rapes" would not be rapes.
> In my view, it is most often
>associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
>systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
Well I've seen some women with moustaches!
Anyway, there are lots of ways to "rape" and women are expert at
many of them. Its all about power and subjugation after all.
Dave Greene
no one
Actually, there have been posts here about women raping men recently.
And my lawyer told me about one that a partner defended.
no one
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> >
> >First, under Lefty's logic (relying on the traditional definition),
> >husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
> >reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of the
> >traditional definition of that crime).
>
> ------
> Not really; I was NEVER relying on a "traditional" definition of
> rape, and have no need to do so; we are free to redifine rape as
> we see fit. You must be joking if you think that "I" think that
> a burglary, to qualify as such, must take place at night (or to a
> traditionally defined "dwelling" for that matter).
Actually, I think that Stephanie was talking about what the law says the
traditional definition is, just like you were about rape.
>
> >In fact, as explained by a NY court: "the statute applies to males who
> >forcibly rape females but does not apply to females who forcibly rape
> >males..." (_People v. Liberta_) Note the use of the term "rape"
> applied >to the conduct of women toward men, despite the technical lack
> of >inclusion of women in the statute.
>
> -------
> Well, until females have the capability to impregate their male
> victim, rape accurately portrays, IMO, a gender specific crime. I
> think this NY court has probably worded this holding in an
> incorrect manner, and it won't be the first time :] If you read
> old caselaw it is quite easy to find laughable holdings. Rape-like
> conduct on the part of women would be impossible if the the dif-
> ferentiation between rape and sexual assault was, in fact, the
> ability to impregnate. It all depends on how we want the crime
But that ISN'T the legal definition. And you can't define it just any
old way you want to. These things are already defined, and you should
know that. And impregnation has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Rape,
boiled down, is sex by force. Come on!
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <01bbd5af$2ba75400$66f0...@disney.com.wds.disney.com>,
Andras Kovacs <andras...@studio.disney.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nonsense. The general thought process going on in a date-rapist's mind
>> is that after spending the money on the date, there is an entitlement to
>> sex.
>
>engaged in it?
Well, if they had, they could make the case that they were merely
soliciting for prostitution instead of raping.
Andras Kovacs
Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@tezcat.com> wrote in article
<56qd2p$l...@xochi.tezcat.com>...
> In article <1996Nov18....@atl.com>,
> David B. Greene <da...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com> says:
> >>
> >>Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
> >>subjugation of one person by another.
> >
> >That is the sanitized PC view of rape and is probably true in many
> >cases but it is an oversimplification I'm sure. If it were toatally
> >true then a lot of "date rapes" would not be rapes.
>
> Nonsense. The general thought process going on in a date-rapist's mind
> is that after spending the money on the date, there is an entitlement to
> sex.
You mean that they should have laid out the deal clearly _before_ they
engaged in it?
>
> >> In my view, it is most often
> >>associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
> >>systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
>
> On hte other hand, rape isn't about hormones.
Well, this is worse than just being an opinion; this is ignorant.
Andras
Stephanie Smith
In article <56ppju$c...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
Why don't you speak to some 80 year old woman who was raped. The fact
that she knows she is not going to become pregnant doesn't make the
experience okay. It's also legally irrelevant in every state.
>To me, rape is a very speicific crime while sexual
> assault can house many forms of sexual activity by both genders.
> -------
Well, then you are entitled to create your own little categories. Just
don't expect anyone to understand you, since sexual assault *is* rape,
and rape is usually defined (even in state statutes) in a gender neutral
way, and is certainly understood that way in common usage.
For example:
California Penal Code Sec. 261. Rape defined
Rape is an act of sexual penetration accomplished with a person
not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and
this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing
the act...
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury
on the person or another.
etc.
Note that "a person" was substituted for "she" in 1979, specifically to
make the statute sex-neutral.
> Many of the states that have amended the statutes >to make them
>sex-neutral (though you don't have to do this) have also >renamed the
>crime "sexual assault" as part of the trend to treat it as a
>>violent crime rather than a sex crime. Some may have kept the name
>>"rape" for the crime -- there is no reason they couldn't, I just don't
>>know the rape laws in every state -- but at any rate this technicality
>>(the changing of the name from rape to sexual assault) hardly leads to
>>Lefty's conclusion.
>
> ------
> There are people who agree with my conclusion and those who
> disagree; we certainly need not abide by "tradtional" common law
> definitions for modern crimes; all I have suggested here is that
> crime should be defined in a way so as to get the clearest picture
> of the harm done. Robbery, for example, is much more serious than
> larceny because of the addition threat of force; to me "rape" is
> more serious than simple sexual assault becaust of the threat of
> pregnancy. I know that idea doesn't appeal to you, and I can
> understand why it doesn't. Also, my definition doesn't negate the
> harm caused within "aggrevated sexual assault"....which can be much
> worse, perhaps than the threat caused by rape; the two are just
> more clearly defined.
> ----------
Lefty, find anyone who agrees with you. Rape law simply has nothing to
do with the risk of pregnancy. It's rape when done to men, to children
too young to conceive, and to 80-yr old women. The rapist does not
get a reduced sentence if he had a vasectomy first.
>>First, under Lefty's logic (relying on the traditional definition),
>>husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
>>reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of the
>>traditional definition of that crime).
>
> ------
> Not really; I was NEVER relying on a "traditional" definition of
> rape, and have no need to do so; we are free to redifine rape as
> we see fit. You must be joking if you think that "I" think that
> a burglary, to qualify as such, must take place at night (or to a
> traditionally defined "dwelling" for that matter).
> -------
Sorry, I thought you must be relying on something.
[snip]
> -------
> Well, until females have the capability to impregate their male
> victim, rape accurately portrays, IMO, a gender specific crime. I
> think this NY court has probably worded this holding in an
> incorrect manner, and it won't be the first time :] If you read
> old caselaw it is quite easy to find laughable holdings. Rape-like
> conduct on the part of women would be impossible if the the dif-
> ferentiation between rape and sexual assault was, in fact, the
> ability to impregnate.
It would be, as would rape-like conduct on the part of a man raping an
80-yr old woman or 8-yr old girl. That's not the differentiation,
however. (In fact, sexual assault is just an alternative name for rape,
like criminal homocide is an alternative name for murder.)
> It all depends on how we want the crime
> defined.
Yes. And you seem to be the only person who wants to focus on the
possibility of pregnancy as an outcome.
> Certainly there are many ways to do that....even if we
> decide to call it sexual assault, there might be ways to clearly
> define the harm done. I would not object to that, provided it was
> somehow included within whatever definition we choose. Rape is the
> traditional word used, and I have seen nothing, as yet, to take its
> place.
> --------
Right. So women, as well as men, can be rapists. I would hardly support
a law that made it a lesser crime to rape an 80-yr old.
>>
>>And finally, if Lefty wants to make so technical a claim, she has
>reduced >her argument to a pointless one. She seems to be saying,
>"women don't >rape because even if they do we call it something
>different." So? It's still equally culpable behavior, isn't it? (And
>of course this brings up the question of why call it something
>different, which she is wrong in >claiming all states do.)
> -------
> I think you have either misunderstood my position, OR I have not
> clearly explained it. Rape and sexual assault may or may not be
> equally culpable.
They are the same thing.
> It all depends on the circumstances. With rape,
> IMO, comes the "ability" or "possibility" of impregnation (even if
> the rapist is sterile, the woman who is being raped doesn't know
> that fact, so the fear is still there, and the "intent" of the
> rapist matters.....that might be a good way to determine the dif-
> ference between rape and sexual assault. That, coupled with the
> ability to inflict STDs/AIDs, etc. and the use of a sex organ to
> perpetrate the crime, makes the crime of rape a bit different from
> sexual assault. There may, in fact, be much better ways to provide
> the type of differentiation in these crimes....and I would not
> object to that.
Perhaps you should suggest this novel theory to your state
representative, and he/she could get right to work on amending CA's rape
law, since right now there is no such "possibility of pregnancy"
requirement. In fact, men can even be victims and women perpetrators.
Stephanie
Stephanie Smith
In article <56qm8g$d4t$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
fed...@anchor.cs.colorado.edu says...
>
>In article <56ppju$c...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>> I think you have either misunderstood my position, OR I have not
>> clearly explained it. Rape and sexual assault may or may not be
>> equally culpable. It all depends on the circumstances. With rape,
>> IMO, comes the "ability" or "possibility" of impregnation (even if
>> the rapist is sterile, the woman who is being raped doesn't know
>> that fact, so the fear is still there, and the "intent" of the
>> rapist matters.....that might be a good way to determine the dif-
>> ference between rape and sexual assault. That, coupled with the
>> ability to inflict STDs/AIDs, etc. and the use of a sex organ to
>> perpetrate the crime, makes the crime of rape a bit different from
>> sexual assault. There may, in fact, be much better ways to provide
>> the type of differentiation in these crimes....and I would not
>> object to that.
>
the
>anus or genitals by *any* object including tongue, penis, finger, or any
other
>object the perpetrator may use (candle sticks, cucumbers, or whatever).
Not
>only that, but penetration is also defined to mean cunnilingus,
fellatio,
>or analingus. I have not doubt that it is defined similarly in most
other
>states.
>
>
>From C.R.S. :
>
> 18-3-402. Sexual assault in the first degree. (1) Any actor who
knowingly
> inflicts *sexual intrusion* or *sexual penetration* on a victim
commits a
> sexual assault in the first degree if:
>
> 18-3-403. Sexual assault in the second degree. (1) Any actor who
knowingly
> inflicts *sexual penetration* or *sexual intrusion* on a victim
commits
> sexual assault in the second degree if:
>
> Colorado State Statute 18-3-401.
>
> 18-3-401. Definitions. As used in this part 4, unless the context
otherwise
> requires:
>
> (5) "Sexual intrusion" means any intrusion, however slight, by *any*
object
> or any part of a person's body, except the mouth, tongue, or penis,
into the
> genital or anal opening of another person's body if that sexual
intrusion can
> reasonably be construed as being for the purposes of sexual arousal,
> gratification, or abuse.
>
> (6) "Sexual penetration" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus,
fellatio,
> analingus, or anal intercourse. Emission need not be proved as an
element
> of any sexual penetration. Any penetration, however slight, is
sufficient
> to complete the crime.
>
>Also, FYI 18-4-402 and 18-3-403 differ primarily based on whether
violence or
>threat of violence is used to gain submission, and in CO (as in most
states
>I suspect) there is no statutory offense called "rape" per say, but the
term
>is commonly used as a synonym for first or second degree sexual assault.
>
>-kelvin
This is very similar to Illinois' "criminal sexual assault" law (it also
does not have a separate rape crime, but just renamed the traditional
crime). I've posted the statute before (basically sexual penetration by
force or threat of force) so won't repeat it yet again. (It's 720 ILCS
5/12-13.) But "sexual penetration" as used in the statute is defined as:
720 ILCS 5/12-12(f) "any contact, however slight, between the sex organ
or anus of one person by an object, the sex organ, mouth or anus of
another person, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body
of one person or of any animal or object into the sex organ or anus of
another person, including but not limited to cunnilingus, fellatio or
anal penetration. Evidence of emission of semen is not required to prove
sexual penetration."
Although "rape" in CA does appear to be limited to pentration involving a
penis (though it does not require that only the one with the penis can
be the accused, and also provides that the slightest penetration is
sufficient and no semen need be omitted), CA law has an additional crime
with the same exact sentence as its "rape" crime for the additional
conduct criminalized in CO and IL. (Which implies that they are thought
to be equally bad.) Also note that none of these CA laws are sex
specific, so I don't know where Lefty got that. (See CA Penal Code Sec.
261, 263, and 289.)
Stephanie
Michael Shepanski
Stephanie Smith wrote:
>
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >>
> >> rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually abuse or
> >> sexually assault is another matter.
[snip]
> First, under Lefty's logic (relying on the traditional definition),
> husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
> reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of the
> traditional definition of that crime).
Yes, but ...
> Also, it would mean that in many states which have changed the name to
> sexual assault, Illinois for example, no one is a rapist. Yet, the claim
No, that doesn't follow, unless the law, having ceased to use
`rape' as the name of a crime, then idly redefines it in some
odd way.
[snip]
> (And many states call murder "criminal homocide". Would
> Lefty argue that in those states there are no murderers?)
Only if those states define `murder' in some odd way.
But why should they bother, if it doesn't occur in their
laws any more?
--- Michael Shepanski
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> >husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
>> >reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of
the> >traditional definition of that crime).
>>
>> ------
>> Not really; I was NEVER relying on a "traditional" definition
of rape, and have no need to do so; we are free to redifine
rape as
>> we see fit. You must be joking if you think that "I" think that
>> a burglary, to qualify as such, must take place at night (or to
a traditionally defined "dwelling" for that matter).
>
the>traditional definition is, just like you were about rape.
-----
No, I think she was trying to make me look "traditional" when I
am, in fact, open to new definitions. I view rape as a gender
specific crime, but I view sexual assault as gender inclusive;
it has nothing to do with "tradition".
------
>
>>
>
>> >In fact, as explained by a NY court: "the statute applies to males
who> >forcibly rape females but does not apply to females who forcibly
rape> >males..." (_People v. Liberta_) Note the use of the term
"rape"> applied >to the conduct of women toward men, despite the
technical lack> of >inclusion of women in the statute.
>>
>> -------
>> Well, until females have the capability to impregate their male
>> victim, rape accurately portrays, IMO, a gender specific crime.
I think this NY court has probably worded this holding in an
>> incorrect manner, and it won't be the first time :] If you read
>> old caselaw it is quite easy to find laughable holdings.
Rape-like conduct on the part of women would be impossible if
the the differentiation between rape and sexual assault was, in
fact, the ability to impregnate. It all depends on how we want
the crime
>
>But that ISN'T the legal definition. And you can't define it just any
>old way you want to. These things are already defined, and you should
>know that. And impregnation has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Rape,>boiled down, is sex by force. Come on!
-----
Do you see what you're doing? You would like to make the crime
more GENERIC while I enjoy more SPECIFIC definitions. Of course
I can't define rape any old way I want to, but I can seek measures
that provide more specific kinds of defining behavior, and that's
pretty much what lawmakers do. I did not say that my "definitions"
were the law; they are not! I simply told you why I see rape as
a gender specific crime. No one has given me a magic wand :]
As for the definition of rape; it is different within every state
in the union to one degree or another. When my state was creating
their own statute, they didn't even ask my opinion :] When we look
at crime we can always look at the degree of harm caused to victims
in defining that crime; women who are raped may face the
consequence of pregnancy; that is indeed a factor worth
consideration; it could, in fact, BE a defining factor between
rape and sexual assault. That doesn't mean it WILL be.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <56r7sd$q...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
(edit)
>Perhaps you should suggest this novel theory to your state
>representative, and he/she could get right to work on amending CA's
rape >law, since right now there is no such "possibility of pregnancy"
>requirement. In fact, men can even be victims and women perpetrators.
>
>Stephanie
-----
I agree with you; there IS no theory like the one I have
suggested. It is my own theory, and it is a bit broader than the
"possibility of pregnancy"; I might seek to also include the idea
of penetration by the part of the body that CAN impregnate, and/or
CAN result in the transmission of AIDs or an STD. I never said this
wasn't a novel approach...I have been criticized for arguments that
state: "this is the law", and now that I've proposed something new
I'm being criticized because it's NOT the law....guess I can't win :]
I'm also not locked into the word "rape"....I think there are ways of
defining sexual assault so as to include the nature of the harms.
Lefty
>
no one
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> -----
> more GENERIC while I enjoy more SPECIFIC definitions. Of course
> I can't define rape any old way I want to, but I can seek measures
> that provide more specific kinds of defining behavior, and that's
> pretty much what lawmakers do. I did not say that my "definitions"
> were the law; they are not! I simply told you why I see rape as
> a gender specific crime. No one has given me a magic wand :]
>
> As for the definition of rape; it is different within every state
> in the union to one degree or another. When my state was creating
> their own statute, they didn't even ask my opinion :] When we look
> at crime we can always look at the degree of harm caused to victims
> in defining that crime; women who are raped may face the
> consequence of pregnancy; that is indeed a factor worth
> rape and sexual assault. That doesn't mean it WILL be.
>
> Lefty
Yes, Lefty, I see what I was doing, and I don't see anything wrong with
that. I think more laws should be gender neutral, including rape. If
pregnancy didn't occur, it's still rape. Even if an orifice was used
that would prevent pregnancy, it would still be rape. I honestly don't
see how it could not be.
Julie
Michael Shepanski wrote:
>
> Stephanie Smith wrote:
> >
> > >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If there are no females rapists, legally, then there are no female
> > >> rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually abuse or
> > >> sexually assault is another matter.
>
> [snip]
>
> > husbands can't rape their wives (and thus can't be rapists for that
> > reason), and burglary must take place at night (which was part of the
> > traditional definition of that crime).
>
>
> > Also, it would mean that in many states which have changed the name to
> > sexual assault, Illinois for example, no one is a rapist. Yet, the claim
>
> No, that doesn't follow, unless the law, having ceased to use
> `rape' as the name of a crime, then idly redefines it in some
> odd way.
>
> [snip]
>
> > (And many states call murder "criminal homocide". Would
> > Lefty argue that in those states there are no murderers?)
>
> Only if those states define `murder' in some odd way.
> But why should they bother, if it doesn't occur in their
> laws any more?
>
> --- Michael Shepanski
Michael, I guess by your name that you are a man. If you are, you'd
better watch out. Stephanie will get on you claiming that you think two
women arguing is some sort of victory "for your side". The most
ridiculous thing I've ever heard here, since women disagree with women
every day, as do men with men. I'm still ROTFLMAO! And you people may as
well not bother to reply. I'll be gone for 2 weeks. LOL!
Stephanie Smith
In article <56sf9h$p...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <56r7sd$q...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>
>(edit)
>
>
>>representative, and he/she could get right to work on amending CA's
>rape >law, since right now there is no such "possibility of pregnancy"
>>requirement. In fact, men can even be victims and women perpetrators.
>>
>>Stephanie
>
> I agree with you; there IS no theory like the one I have
>suggested. It is my own theory, and it is a bit broader than the
>"possibility of pregnancy"; I might seek to also include the idea
>of penetration by the part of the body that CAN impregnate, and/or
>CAN result in the transmission of AIDs or an STD. I never said this
>wasn't a novel approach...I have been criticized for arguments that
>state: "this is the law", and now that I've proposed something new
>I'm being criticized because it's NOT the law....guess I can't win :]
I have no opposition to your suggesting new approachs (in fact, I prefer
that, since I think the law is frequently wrong). (Though I do think
the current state of the rape laws in most of the US is pretty fair.) I
just don't think it was clear. You said: "women can't be rapists",
without explaining: "in Lefty's personal opinion women can't be rapists,
since she thinks that pregnancy should be a possibility in order for it
to be really bad" or whatever your opinion is.
>I'm also not locked into the word "rape"....I think there are ways of
>defining sexual assault so as to include the nature of the harms.
I just strongly disagree with you that the possibility of pregnancy is
that critical to the nature of the harm. Think about the 80 year old
woman or a man raped by another man.
Stephanie
Stephanie Smith
In article <329122...@uow.edu.au>, m...@uow.edu.au says...
>
>Stephanie Smith wrote:
>>
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If there are no females rapists, legally, then there are no
female
>> >> rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually abuse or
>> >> sexually assault is another matter.
[snip]
>> Also, it would mean that in many states which have changed the name to
>> sexual assault, Illinois for example, no one is a rapist. Yet, the
claim
>
>No, that doesn't follow, unless the law, having ceased to use
>`rape' as the name of a crime, then idly redefines it in some
>odd way.
But wasn't that the claim she was making? She was claiming that women
can't be rapists, despite knowing that many states have changed the
name of the crime from "rape" to "sexual assault" in their criminal
codes when making the crime sex-neutral. In common speech, rape
obviously refers to the same conduct by either a man or woman (forcing
sex), as was pointed out by the person who quoted the dictionary
definition.
Thus, in states which have "sexual assault", rather than rape, you either
assume that it is the same as rape (since it serves the same purpose that
that crime did, is an explicit renaming of that crime, and fits the
conduct commonly called rape) or else you make up some arbitrary
distinction between those guilty of the crime orginally called "rape",
which fit the traditional definition by excluding acts done by women and
husbands or to men, and the additional people included in the new statute
(since after all it is called "sexual assault"). The second is what
Lefty seems to have done, the first is what most people do.
Also, Lefty appears to be making some argument that California calls the
same crime "sexual assault" if women do it, and "rape" if men do it.
That is simply untrue. California's rape law (and they still call it
"rape") is sex neutral. California is merely odd because they separate
out all the other sorts of possible sexual penetration (as set out in the
quotes from the Colorado and Illinois statutes, which were posted on this
thread). However, they don't call that sexual assault, and that hardly
means that only men can be rapists. (CA amended its rape law in 1979 to
make the language sex-neutral.)
[snip]
Stephanie
mor...@centuryinter.net
> In <328D64...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com>
> writes:
>
> >Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
> >subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
> >associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
> >systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
> >
> >Jubal
> >
> >--
>
> If testosterone makes men violent, then estrogen makes women violent.
> Both sexes can be violent.
> --
> sm...@ix.netcom.com
> "The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
> wanting to be by oneself,
> being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
> "Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Several years ago locally 2 women picked up a fellow who was hitchhiking.
They forced him to have sex with them by threatening to blow a sensitive part
of his anatomy away with the pistol they possessed. He reported it because he
was afraid he might catch a "social disease" since no condoms were used.
It takes all kinds doesn't it.
James
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
----
Century Telephone
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <56sl5q$7...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
>In article <56sf9h$p...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>
>>In <56r7sd$q...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>>
>>(edit)
>>
>>
>>>representative, and he/she could get right to work on amending CA's
>>rape >law, since right now there is no such "possibility of
pregnancy" >>>requirement. In fact, men can even be victims and women
perpetrators.
>>>
>>>Stephanie
>>
>> I agree with you; there IS no theory like the one I have
>>suggested. It is my own theory, and it is a bit broader than the
>>"possibility of pregnancy"; I might seek to also include the idea
>>of penetration by the part of the body that CAN impregnate, and/or
>>CAN result in the transmission of AIDs or an STD. I never said this
>>wasn't a novel approach...I have been criticized for arguments that
>>state: "this is the law", and now that I've proposed something new
>>I'm being criticized because it's NOT the law....guess I can't win :]
>
>I have no opposition to your suggesting new approachs (in fact, I
prefer >that, since I think the law is frequently wrong). (Though I do
think >the current state of the rape laws in most of the US is pretty
fair.) I >just don't think it was clear. You said: "women can't be
be rapists, >since she thinks that pregnancy should be a possibility in
order for it >to be really bad" or whatever your opinion is.
-------
Again, I must ask you for some information; if a law is in exist-
ence where there are no perpetrators, I would call that law, at
the very least, ineffective. Where is the list of female rapists
convicted under CA's gender neutral statute?
--------
>
>>I'm also not locked into the word "rape"....I think there are ways of
>>defining sexual assault so as to include the nature of the harms.
>
>I just strongly disagree with you that the possibility of pregnancy is
>that critical to the nature of the harm. Think about the 80 year old
>woman or a man raped by another man.
>
>Stephanie
-----
I think we can assess each harm; the harm of rape to an 80 year
old man or woman could be assessed, as could the harm to a woman
who was raped and fears pregnancy. What I am suggesting here, is
that the "rape" of a woman has different risks than does the
"sexual assault" of a man due to issues related to gestation. I
see no reason why the two harms are mutually exclusive.
Lefty
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> more GENERIC while I enjoy more SPECIFIC definitions. Of course
>> I can't define rape any old way I want to, but I can seek
measures that provide more specific kinds of defining behavior,
and that's pretty much what lawmakers do. I did not say that
my "definitions"were the law; they are not! I simply told you
why I see rape as a gender specific crime. No one has given me
a magic wand :]
>>
>> As for the definition of rape; it is different within every
may face the consequence of pregnancy; that is indeed a factor
worth consideration; it could, in fact, BE a defining factor
>>
>> Lefty
>
>Yes, Lefty, I see what I was doing, and I don't see anything wrong
with>that. I think more laws should be gender neutral, including rape.
If>pregnancy didn't occur, it's still rape. Even if an orifice was used
>that would prevent pregnancy, it would still be rape. I honestly don't
>see how it could not be.
------
Well, it all depends on whether you like to paint with a broad
brush or one that is more narrowly tailored. My experience has
been that if we can define criminal actions in such a way that
they are more narrowly defined, AND include as many of those
definintions as possible that a conviction is more likely. If
we have too broad a characterization, or too narrow (without
many choices), a jury is more likely to let a criminal fall be-
tween the cracks. "Rape" could be just another definition with-
in an entire aresenal of "sexual assault" type crimes....and how
we want to define rape is probably not as important as including
all the harms under that rubric umbrella.
Lefty
Gerry Harbison
Jubal Harshaw wrote:
>
> Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
> subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
> associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
> systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
I know of no evidence suggesting that rape is correlated with
testosterone levels in men. Higher levels of testosterone are normal for
men, and to speak of 'an excess' is just more boring man-bashing. One
might as easily (and as stupidly) define women as testosterone deficient
weaklings.
--
Gerry Harbison mailto:ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu
http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/harbison_group/harbison.html
"They are trying to make some people feel good by making other people
feel bad, and if I were a boy, I'd move to New Guinea."
-- Sadie Stein, an eighth grader from New York, on Take Your Daughter To
Work Day.
Pohl Longsine
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> I did not say that my "definitions"were the law; they are not!
> I simply told you why I see rape as a gender specific crime. No one
> has given me a magic wand :]
Now I understand what started all of this. I respect your perspective,
and have a woman friend that would have agreed with you a few years
ago.
She was a victim of rape (football player at a frat house, no less)
and went through a long, painful recovery. She was finally able to
make peace with men in general when she met a man who, according
to her, was the only male she knew "who truly understood the
experience."
Apparently, this young man was drinking with some of his university
friends and ended up at a post-bar party full of familiar faces.
He passed-out on the couch, and woke up in the still of the early
morning to the forceful penetration of his anus by another man's
penis.
He was drunk beyond the ability to defend himself, and pretended
that he was unconscious throughout the ordeal. After it was over,
he waited until the house was quiet, grabbed his clothes, and
fled.
My friend no longer views rape as a gender specific crime.
--
po...@screaming.org |"Reality is that which, when you stop believing
http://screaming.org/ | in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Linux | NeXT | Be | Java| Friends don't let friends use windoze.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32933CC0...@screaming.org> Pohl Longsine <po...@screaming.org>
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> I did not say that my "definitions"were the law; they are not!
>> I simply told you why I see rape as a gender specific crime. No one
>> has given me a magic wand :]
>
>Now I understand what started all of this. I respect your
perspective,>and have a woman friend that would have agreed with you a
few years>ago.
>
>She was a victim of rape (football player at a frat house, no less)
>and went through a long, painful recovery. She was finally able to
>make peace with men in general when she met a man who, according
>to her, was the only male she knew "who truly understood the
>experience."
>
>Apparently, this young man was drinking with some of his university
>friends and ended up at a post-bar party full of familiar faces.
>He passed-out on the couch, and woke up in the still of the early
>morning to the forceful penetration of his anus by another man's
>penis.
>
>He was drunk beyond the ability to defend himself, and pretended
>that he was unconscious throughout the ordeal. After it was over,
>he waited until the house was quiet, grabbed his clothes, and
>fled.
>
>My friend no longer views rape as a gender specific crime.
-----
Ah, but what you forget here, is that had this person been female,
not only would she have had to deal with the emotional baggage of
rape, but also with the possibility of pregnancy. This is just an
added "bonus" for a female victim.
Lefty
>
>--
>po...@screaming.org |"Reality is that which, when you stop
believing
>http://screaming.org/ | in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
>------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-
Rich Payne
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <32933CC0...@screaming.org> Pohl Longsine <po...@screaming.org>
Funny, other female feminists posting here have claimed that most
male rapists do not ejaculate.
Rich
: Lefty
: >
: >--
: >po...@screaming.org |"Reality is that which, when you stop
: believing
: >http://screaming.org/ | in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
: >------------------------+---------------------------------------------
: -
: >Linux | NeXT | Be | Java| Friends don't let friends use windoze.
--
Mark Evans
Daniel B. Holzman (hol...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: In article <01bbd5af$2ba75400$66f0...@disney.com.wds.disney.com>,
: Andras Kovacs <andras...@studio.disney.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> Nonsense. The general thought process going on in a date-rapist's mind
: >> is that after spending the money on the date, there is an entitlement to
: >> sex.
: >
: >You mean that they should have laid out the deal clearly _before_ they
: >engaged in it?
: Well, if they had, they could make the case that they were merely
: soliciting for prostitution instead of raping.
Maybe the double standard WRT to prostitution needs to be addressed
IMHO we have things backward. Currently prostitution is viewed
as "bad" if done openly and directly, but seen as "good" if
inside a relationship (or in a marriage).
phyr...@usa.net
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>In <32933CC0...@screaming.org> Pohl Longsine <po...@screaming.org>
>writes:
> Ah, but what you forget here, is that had this person been female,
> not only would she have had to deal with the emotional baggage of
> rape, but also with the possibility of pregnancy. This is just an
> added "bonus" for a female victim.
>
> Lefty
She also has to allow, become comfortable with allowing someone else
to go where the rapist has gone before, and to allow it to be
enjoyable if she wants the marriage/family thing. A raped male
doesn't have to allow anyone up his ass again. There's more to this,
obviously, but I don't wanna go on forever to cover all the bases. A
man can be raped and traumatized by it ,no doubt, but it IS different
than when a woman is raped.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3292c22...@nntp.netcruiser> phyr...@usa.net writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>>In <32933CC0...@screaming.org> Pohl Longsine
<po...@screaming.org>
>>writes:
>
>> Ah, but what you forget here, is that had this person been
This is just an added "bonus" for a female victim.
>>
>> Lefty
>
>She also has to allow, become comfortable with allowing someone else
>to go where the rapist has gone before, and to allow it to be
>enjoyable if she wants the marriage/family thing. A raped male
>doesn't have to allow anyone up his ass again. There's more to this,
>obviously, but I don't wanna go on forever to cover all the bases. A
>man can be raped and traumatized by it ,no doubt, but it IS different
>than when a woman is raped.
-----
I guess it's hard for me to think
in terms of sexual wellness after rape, since I have not been a
rape victim. I suppose the reasons I classify rape as being dif-
ferent from sexual assault has more to do with the intent of the
rapist in taking what he IS taking from the victim, including the
possible ability of the victim to ever enjoy sex again, as you've
suggested.
Of course, the trend, as Stephanie and others have pointed out, is
to go with "sexual assault". I think rape is useful in defining
what I perceive as a gender specific crime committed by men and
toward women (for the reasons both of us have mentioned).
Lefty
James Buster
In article <3292F2...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>,
Gerry Harbison <ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> wrote:
>I know of no evidence suggesting that rape is correlated with
>testosterone levels in men. Higher levels of testosterone are normal for
>men, and to speak of 'an excess' is just more boring man-bashing. One
>might as easily (and as stupidly) define women as testosterone deficient
>weaklings.
Worse than that, most evidence that testosterone causes aggression is
obtained by giving it to *women*. Giving a man extra doses of testosterone
does very little to change his behavior. In fact, aberrant and violent
behavior in men is more highly correlated with a testosterone *deficit*.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking atomsphere of
poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not much like Earth.
-- Calvin
James Buster
In article <3292c22...@nntp.netcruiser>, <phyr...@usa.net> wrote:
>She also has to allow, become comfortable with allowing someone else
>to go where the rapist has gone before, and to allow it to be
>enjoyable if she wants the marriage/family thing.
The question is, why is she uncomfortable? Why is she projecting her
feelings about her rapist onto her lover? Imagine a person who says
"I am not comfortable with intimate contact with my face because I
have been beaten". That sounds totally irrational, doesn't it?
>A raped male doesn't have to allow anyone up his ass again.
And if he is forced to fellate his rapist, should he find cunnilingus
uncomfortable?
Stephanie Smith
In article <56tvnc$l...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <56sl5q$7...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>
>>In article <56sf9h$p...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>>>
>>>In <56r7sd$q...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>>>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>>>
>>>(edit)
>>>
>>>
>>>>representative, and he/she could get right to work on amending CA's
>>>rape >law, since right now there is no such "possibility of
>pregnancy" >>>requirement. In fact, men can even be victims and women
>perpetrators.
>>>>
>>>>Stephanie
>>>
>>> I agree with you; there IS no theory like the one I have
>>>suggested. It is my own theory, and it is a bit broader than the
>>>"possibility of pregnancy"; I might seek to also include the idea
>>>of penetration by the part of the body that CAN impregnate, and/or
>>>CAN result in the transmission of AIDs or an STD. I never said this
>>>wasn't a novel approach...I have been criticized for arguments that
>>>state: "this is the law", and now that I've proposed something new
>>>I'm being criticized because it's NOT the law....guess I can't win :]
>>
>>I have no opposition to your suggesting new approachs (in fact, I
>prefer >that, since I think the law is frequently wrong). (Though I do
>think >the current state of the rape laws in most of the US is pretty
>fair.) I >just don't think it was clear. You said: "women can't be
>rapists", >without explaining: "in Lefty's personal opinion women can't
>be rapists, >since she thinks that pregnancy should be a possibility in
>order for it >to be really bad" or whatever your opinion is.
>
> -------
> Again, I must ask you for some information; if a law is in exist-
> ence where there are no perpetrators, I would call that law, at
> the very least, ineffective. Where is the list of female rapists
> convicted under CA's gender neutral statute?
> --------
Why ineffective? Does my knowledge of perpetrators of rape matter that
much. I never knew. I don't know the names of any women convicted of
burglary in California either. Does that mean only men can commit
burglary in California?
If you are trying to argue that women *don't* commit rape, then make that
point. Don't say they are legally incapable of it. I personally would
be surprised if women rape men much (that's different than never),
though not because of any difference in the natures of men and women.
And it is not physically impossible even in California (and most
definitely not in IL, CO, and many other states).
Actually, my sister wrote a paper on male rape (that is, the raping of
men) for a psych class a few years ago which had a portion on the raping
of men by women. I will try and get the paper from her and then I will
have more info. I don't remember the specifics, but it can and does
happen. If you are trying to argue to the contrary I wish you would make
that point rather than some bogus one that women are legally incapable of
rape.
>>
>>>I'm also not locked into the word "rape"....I think there are ways of
>>>defining sexual assault so as to include the nature of the harms.
>>
>>I just strongly disagree with you that the possibility of pregnancy is
>>that critical to the nature of the harm. Think about the 80 year old
>>woman or a man raped by another man.
>>
>>Stephanie
>
> -----
> I think we can assess each harm; the harm of rape to an 80 year
> old man or woman could be assessed, as could the harm to a woman
> who was raped and fears pregnancy.
Currently the sentences for rape in California appear to be set (and the
same whether "rape" or penetration with an object, etc). And of course
they don't need to be different crimes to have a weighing of the harms in
sentencing.
I just think you are playing a dangerous game in asking the court to say
that the rape of a young woman is worse than that of a man, an 80 yr old
woman or a child, due to the possibility of pregnancy. First, it is the
forcing of sexual penetration that we punish -- the criminal's bad act.
That is the same in all cases. Also, it sounds as if you want the court
to make a judgment -- "oh, it's not that bad, he (or she) never had to
worry about getting pregnant or anything." It's a rather short step from
that to evaluating the impact on the victim in other ways -- "it's not
rape, she's a prostitute," or "she's a slut."
Tell me why the action of raping a man should be considered less bad than
that of raping a woman. And remember, we don't evaluate how valuable a
person's life was or whether they had much time to live left when
deciding whether to call something first degree murder.
> What I am suggesting here, is
> that the "rape" of a woman has different risks than does the
> "sexual assault" of a man due to issues related to gestation.
The raping of any individual has different risks than the raping of
another individual. It sounds like you are trying to say that the raping
of a man is never as bad as the raping of a woman. If so, keep in mind
that pregnancy can't be the reason, since many women who are raped rather
obviously can't become pregnant.
Also, if you keep using the terms "rape" and "sexual assault" as
different crimes you are difficult to understand, since they are
synonyms.
>I
> see no reason why the two harms are mutually exclusive.
What do you mean by this?
Stephanie
Alan Madsen
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
ha...! date rape to prostitution inside marrage
in three quotes...
er ya go... from simply brutal to simply absurd...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Stephanie Smith
In article <3292F2...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>,
ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu says...
>
>Jubal Harshaw wrote:
>>
>
>> Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
>> subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
>> associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
>> systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
>
>
>testosterone levels in men. Higher levels of testosterone are normal for
>men, and to speak of 'an excess' is just more boring man-bashing. One
>might as easily (and as stupidly) define women as testosterone deficient
>weaklings.
Don't remember where I read this, so take it with a grain of salt, of
course, but testosterone levels vary in women as well, and there has
been no connection found between women with high levels and violence.
In fact, apparently high stress decreases testestosterone levels in both.
Stephanie
Michael Shepanski
Stephanie Smith wrote:
>
> In article <329122...@uow.edu.au>, m...@uow.edu.au says...
> >
> >Stephanie Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> If there are no females rapists, legally, then there are no
> female
> >> >> rapists. Whether or not there are women who sexually abuse or
> >> >> sexually assault is another matter.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Also, it would mean that in many states which have changed the name to
> >> sexual assault, Illinois for example, no one is a rapist. Yet, the
> claim
> >
> >No, that doesn't follow, unless the law, having ceased to use
> >`rape' as the name of a crime, then idly redefines it in some
> >odd way.
>
> But wasn't that the claim she was making?
Well, since posting that it has transpired that Lefty's meaning
was something altogether different from what you or I or any
other Earthian speaker might have understood from her words.
But let that pass.
I thought at the time that she thought that she was applying
an actual legal definition of "rape" (obviously not from the
same states you're talking about, where that word no longer
appears in the laws at all). If she had been, then that
wouldn't have implied anything about what should or shouldn't
count as rape in states whose laws don't use the word.
But enough speculating about the inside of Lefty's mind.
I think I'll go and wonder how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin.
--- Michael Shepanski
Dorothy Marker
On 21 Nov 1996 00:04:06 -0500, ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) wrote:
>Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Daniel B. Holzman (hol...@tezcat.com) wrote:
>: : In article <01bbd5af$2ba75400$66f0...@disney.com.wds.disney.com>,
>: : Andras Kovacs <andras...@studio.disney.com> wrote:
>: : >>
>: : >> Nonsense. The general thought process going on in a date-rapist's mind
>: : >> is that after spending the money on the date, there is an entitlement to
>: : >> sex.
>: : >
>: : >You mean that they should have laid out the deal clearly _before_ they
>: : >engaged in it?
>: :
>: : Well, if they had, they could make the case that they were merely
>: : soliciting for prostitution instead of raping.
>
>: Maybe the double standard WRT to prostitution needs to be addressed
>: IMHO we have things backward. Currently prostitution is viewed
>: as "bad" if done openly and directly, but seen as "good" if
>: inside a relationship (or in a marriage).
I make twice what my huband does. Is he a male prostitute?
Such questions need to be pondered before you post this stuff. Does
this mean that if a woman pays for a date and the man is unwilling,
she is a victim of date fraud?
Or is the man who pays for the date with the expectation that
the woman will have sex with him committing date fraud? He is after
all, devising a contract without her knowledge. She thinks that he is
a generous person, she plans to reciprocate this generosity by taking
him out at a later date. She's just about to suggest this when he
demands sex for his investment.
When he asked her out, when he suggested the entertainment,
and all throughout the date he never so much as hinted that he
expected sex as a return on his investment. Doesn't that sound like
fraud to you? It does to me.
Dorothy Marker
>
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <570fp6$a...@usenet10.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
------
Actually, what I was asking for was a "list" of women actually
convicted of rape where they were not arrested as conspirators
or accomplices so that I could see how effective the law really
was....your knowledge of that is rather irrelevant; I don't care
who provides the list; I just wanted it.
------
>
>If you are trying to argue that women *don't* commit rape, then make
that >point. Don't say they are legally incapable of it. I personally
would >be surprised if women rape men much (that's different than
never), >though not because of any difference in the natures of men and
women. >And it is not physically impossible even in California (and
most >definitely not in IL, CO, and many other states).
-------
My "point" is reflective of practicality. If we make a law that
folks may not whip out their sex organ and point it at someone in
the street, the effect of that law becomes gender specific whether
or not we actually name the gender. :]
-------
>
>Actually, my sister wrote a paper on male rape (that is, the raping of
>men) for a psych class a few years ago which had a portion on the
raping of men by women. I will try and get the paper from her and then
I will >have more info. I don't remember the specifics, but it can and
does happen. If you are trying to argue to the contrary I wish you
would make >that point rather than some bogus one that women are
legally incapable of >rape.
------
Oh, I think you could make a law that makes women "legally capable"
of rape; I think CA has come close to doing just that. I find it
amusing. I think women are not "practically" or "naturally" cap-
able of that crime as "I" have defined it. That doesn't negate
any sexual assault types of crimes that I see as gender neutral.
Like I've stated, I don't really get to wave my wand and make the
rules or draft the definitions. I'd like to read you sister's
paper; I also know that women are capable of acts of violence in
the sexual arena.
>
>>>
>>>>I'm also not locked into the word "rape"....I think there are ways
of>>>defining sexual assault so as to include the nature of the harms.
>
>I just strongly disagree with you that the possibility of pregnancy
is>>that critical to the nature of the harm. Think about the 80 year
old >>>woman or a man raped by another man.
>>>
>>>Stephanie
>>
>> -----
>> I think we can assess each harm; the harm of rape to an 80 year
>> old man or woman could be assessed, as could the harm to a woman
> who was raped and fears pregnancy.
>
>Currently the sentences for rape in California appear to be set (and
the >same whether "rape" or penetration with an object, etc). And of
course >they don't need to be different crimes to have a weighing of
the harms in >sentencing.
>
>I just think you are playing a dangerous game in asking the court to
say >that the rape of a young woman is worse than that of a man, an 80
yr old >woman or a child, due to the possibility of pregnancy. First,
it is the >forcing of sexual penetration that we punish -- the
criminal's bad act.
------
The rape of a woman is worse than the rape of a man (absent some
aggrevated....i.e. mayhem, mutilation) since this kind of assault
on a woman has the possibility of ruining sex for her forever;
a het man who has been raped, doesn't normally experience his sex-
uality in this manner. Then, there is the second hit, the fear of
pregnancy. The harm to women is greater unless you say that a
woman has no right to allow the rape "color" her ideas of normal
het. sex. or that she is being overly sensitive to fear a result-
ing pregnancy. Each rape/sexual assault has its own harms, but
the harms to a woman are, IMO, greater for the reasons I have
explained.
If you don't agree, put yourself in the picture. If you are a het.
man who has been raped by a gay man, do you think you will be in
fear of your het. partner the next time you have sex? Do you think
that a het woman who has been raped will be afraid of the results
of a pregnancy test? Now, if you are a het man who has been
sexually assaulted by a het woman, do you think you would be afraid
of your het partner the next time you have sex? If you think about
the "nature" of dominence and submission within the sex act, I
think you can figure it out.
>That is the same in all cases. Also, it sounds as if you want the
court >to make a judgment -- "oh, it's not that bad, he (or she) never
had to >worry about getting pregnant or anything." It's a rather short
step from >that to evaluating the impact on the victim in other ways --
"it's not rape, she's a prostitute," or "she's a slut."
------
That would be the evaluation of a "subjective" harm; the fear of
intimacy after rape and the fear of pregnancy and the actual harm
caused by the pregnacy in some rape victims is not "judgemental"
or subjective; it's very real. Also, juries ARE encouraged to look
at the "intent" of the accused; if the accused has raped a woman
who's 6 months pregnant, for example, the jury can certainly
consider that in assessment of his culpability. As for the status
of the victim, her sexual history may not be considered, but her
sexual history with the defendant may indeed be an important con-
sideration.
>
>Tell me why the action of raping a man should be considered less bad
than >that of raping a woman. And remember, we don't evaluate how
valuable a >person's life was or whether they had much time to live
left when >deciding whether to call something first degree murder.
-----
I think I have done that above....if not, let me know ...I'll try
again.
------
>
>> What I am suggesting here, is
>> that the "rape" of a woman has different risks than does the
>> "sexual assault" of a man due to issues related to gestation.
>
>The raping of any individual has different risks than the raping of
>another individual. It sounds like you are trying to say that the
raping >of a man is never as bad as the raping of a woman. If so, keep
in mind >that pregnancy can't be the reason, since many women who are
raped rather >obviously can't become pregnant.
-----
It doesn't matter. The "rape" is an assault on her sexuality, i.e.
on her right to enjoy normal het sex. He is taking something from
her that he CANNOT take from a normal het male, even without the
possibility of pregnancy. If you shoot a man sitting in a chair
who is already dead, you can still be accused of attempted murder.
The intent of the rapist to take what he cannot have re: the
woman's right to enjoy a normal het sexual relationship, and the
possibility of pregnancy makes the two, IMO, different.
-------
>
>Also, if you keep using the terms "rape" and "sexual assault" as
>different crimes you are difficult to understand, since they are
>synonyms.
>
>>> I see no reason why the two harms are mutually exclusive.
>
>What do you mean by this?
I was refering to the fact that we can assess the individual harms
to victims under the rubric of "sexual assault". The harm to an
80 year old man who has been assaulted sexually can be assessed and
the harms to a woman can either be assessed under that terminology
or under the term, "rape". The word, "rape" has many different
meanings, but legally, we must be very careful how we use it. I
personally don't find the CA definition helpful.
Lefty
Chris Veal
On 20 Nov 1996, Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> I think we can assess each harm; the harm of rape to an 80 year
> old man or woman could be assessed, as could the harm to a woman
> who was raped and fears pregnancy. What I am suggesting here, is
> that the "rape" of a woman has different risks than does the
> "sexual assault" of a man due to issues related to gestation. I
> see no reason why the two harms are mutually exclusive.
>
> Lefty
>
If the man that was a victim of sexual assault is taken to court by his
assailant, then under current law (at least in some states), the man
would be forced to pay child support. For example, in a court case in
Indiana, a man and woman had consensual sex. The woman got pregnant, had
the child, and sued the man for child support. The woman won the court
case and financial support for the child. The twist in the story is
that the man was twelve years old, and the woman was his eighteen year
old baby sitter. The judge ruled that the fact that the woman had
broken a criminal statute (ie statutory rape) had no bearing on the
civil case. To differentiate the risks involved with the rape of a
woman and the rape of a man may do more harm than good.
Chris Veal
cv3...@swt.edu
"But for what purpose was the earth formed?" asked Candide.
"To drive us mad," replied Martin.
From _Candide_ by Voltaire, 1759
Chris Veal
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 mor...@centuryinter.net wrote:
>
> > In <328D64...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com>
> > writes:
> >
> > >Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
> > >subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
> > >associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
> > >systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
> > >
> > >Jubal
> > >
> > >--
> >
> > If testosterone makes men violent, then estrogen makes women violent.
> > Both sexes can be violent.
> > --
> > sm...@ix.netcom.com
> > "The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
> > wanting to be by oneself,
> > being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
> > "Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Scientific evidence shows that it is the lack of testosterone that makes
men violent, not an excess of it.
Chris Veal
On 21 Nov 1996, Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> The rape of a woman is worse than the rape of a man (absent some
> aggrevated....i.e. mayhem, mutilation) since this kind of assault
> on a woman has the possibility of ruining sex for her forever;
> a het man who has been raped, doesn't normally experience his sex-
> uality in this manner. Then, there is the second hit, the fear of
> pregnancy. The harm to women is greater unless you say that a
> woman has no right to allow the rape "color" her ideas of normal
> het. sex. or that she is being overly sensitive to fear a result-
> ing pregnancy. Each rape/sexual assault has its own harms, but
> the harms to a woman are, IMO, greater for the reasons I have
> explained.
You are ignoring some blaring statistics. First off, in the US, twice as
many men than women are raped in jail according to Stop Prisoner Rape. In
this situation, the victim lives in close contact with his assailant(s) for
years. Think about the psychological ramifications of this. I can tell
you a personal story about my uncle to illustrate the point. My uncle
was sent to jail for stupidly holding up a convience store in his home
town where the clerk could easily identify him. While he was in jail, he
was raped. He literally went insane from the act. When he was finally
released, my uncle attempted to live a normal life with his wife and
child, but was unable to. Eventually he was sent to a mental hospital
were he had to be locked in. He escaped one day and jumped off the roof
of the six story hospital. Needless to say, he didn't live.
Women may get pregnant. A woman's self life may be ruined forever.
However, a woman generally does not have to live with her assailant(s)
for years on end like male rape victims in prison have to.
Of course, we are talking about female rapists, not male rapists. I just
have a hard time with general statements saying women have a harder time
dealing with rape than men.
Kep Brown
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> >> What I am suggesting here, is
> >> that the "rape" of a woman has different risks than does the
> >> "sexual assault" of a man due to issues related to gestation.
> -----
> It doesn't matter. The "rape" is an assault on her sexuality, i.e.
> on her right to enjoy normal het sex. He is taking something from
> her that he CANNOT take from a normal het male, even without the
> possibility of pregnancy. If you shoot a man sitting in a chair
> who is already dead, you can still be accused of attempted murder.
> The intent of the rapist to take what he cannot have re: the
> woman's right to enjoy a normal het sexual relationship, and the
> possibility of pregnancy makes the two, IMO, different.
> -------
So you are saying rape is less harmful to a lesbian than a het.
female and that rape is less harmful to a sterile woman than one who is
capable of reproducing. Heck if we apply your standards there are many
many woman who couldn't be raped. Severely mentally retarded women
couldn't be raped. Catholic nuns couldn't be raped. Lesbians with
their tubes tied couldn't be raped. Old lesbians couldn't be raped.
Stephanie Smith
In article <571mt4$p...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
> -------
>
> My "point" is reflective of practicality. If we make a law that
> folks may not whip out their sex organ and point it at someone in
> the street, the effect of that law becomes gender specific whether
> or not we actually name the gender. :]
> -------
But unlike this example (as I believe you intended it), women are
physically capable of committing rape as defined in CA. And there is not
even a question as defined in many other states, since they include oral
sex, penetration with an object, etc. And this still does not address
your real point, which is that you don't think the law should be written
so that men can be the victim.
[snip]
> ------
> The rape of a woman is worse than the rape of a man (absent some
> aggrevated....i.e. mayhem, mutilation)
I disagree. How can you judge the impact on any individual?
since this kind of assault
> on a woman has the possibility of ruining sex for her forever;
> a het man who has been raped, doesn't normally experience his sex-
> uality in this manner.
First, what about gay men? Would you say that they could be raped? From
what I remember when my sister was writing her paper, there have been
studies which show that men are often more harmed, due to the
""homosexual" connotations, the fact that they think they should have
been able to prevent it -- that it indicates something about there
sexuality, and society's denial that it even occurs. I will have more
details about this when I get the paper from her, but that probably won't
be until Christmastime.
But my personal opinion is that this weighing of the comparative harms on
the category of victim to judge the severity of the *same act* is not
wise or fair. It gives the impression that we care more about harm to
certain categories of people, and not others, and is often inaccurate in
specific cases. Some men will be more impacted than some women. People
are individuals.
> Then, there is the second hit, the fear of
> pregnancy.
But this is only in a small number of cases and would exclude many
categories of women. I also think the harm of rape is huge and exists
without the pregnancy issue -- the act is no better because you choose a
victim who can't be impregnated (man, old woman, child, etc.). It
deserves to be equally punished.
> The harm to women is greater unless you say that a
> woman has no right to allow the rape "color" her ideas of normal
> het. sex. or that she is being overly sensitive to fear a result-
> ing pregnancy. Each rape/sexual assault has its own harms, but
> the harms to a woman are, IMO, greater for the reasons I have
> explained.
And I don't think you have any way of knowing this, especially since, as
you admit, it differs from case to case.
> If you don't agree, put yourself in the picture. If you are a het.
> man who has been raped by a gay man, do you think you will be in
> fear of your het. partner the next time you have sex? Do you think
> that a het woman who has been raped will be afraid of the results
> of a pregnancy test?
Not necessarily. The normal procedure is to take action to prevent it if
you go to the hospital immediately. There was an article recently in
the Trib about how even pro-life people think of this as part of the
routine, and not objectionable (or at least compared to the potential
alternatives). Both sexes would fear STDs. But try to read up on some
studies of men who have been raped (I'll get the cites from my sister's
paper if you don't find any before then) before just dismissing the harm.
> Now, if you are a het man who has been
> sexually assaulted by a het woman, do you think you would be afraid
> of your het partner the next time you have sex? If you think about
> the "nature" of dominence and submission within the sex act, I
> think you can figure it out.
Again, read up on some of the studies before you just assume. Also, what
about the other actions included as rape in other states -- forced sex
with an animal, pentration with objects, etc. It could well effect his
ability to have normal sex. And apparently the fact that his body will
often cooperate against his will and under the worst conditions (as at
gun point) creates major problems with the man's ability to enjoy sex
afterwards, sense of shame, etc. Particularly since it is not acceptable
in society (as you demonstrate) for him to admit any harm.
Plus, the fact is that it is an act of violence and violation of another
person. This is true, and equally criminal, whether a man or woman does
so.
>>That is the same in all cases. Also, it sounds as if you want the
>court >to make a judgment -- "oh, it's not that bad, he (or she) never
>had to >worry about getting pregnant or anything." It's a rather short
>step from >that to evaluating the impact on the victim in other ways --
>"it's not rape, she's a prostitute," or "she's a slut."
>
> ------
> That would be the evaluation of a "subjective" harm; the fear of
> intimacy after rape and the fear of pregnancy and the actual harm
> caused by the pregnacy in some rape victims is not "judgemental"
> or subjective; it's very real.
Something can be both subjective and real. The harm suffered by any
individual will be subjective (and real), that's the point. The exact
harms will be different, and not necessarily equal, in every case. You
can't say categorically that every woman raped is harmed more than every
man raped. Also, the difference between the harm two women suffer may be
just as great as that between a woman and a man. Yet we don't look at
the extent the individual woman was harmed in punishing the rapist.
I just don't see your motive in this argument. Why does the idea of
punishing those who rape men to the same extent as those who rape women
(which is already the law, anyway) bother you? Raping anyone is a
horrible crime. We don't say killing someone 89 years old is not as bad
as someone 21 years old, even though on average the harm to the 21 year
old (who would have much longer to live) is going to be greater. Arguing
that those who rape men don't deserve the same punishment -- that raping
men isn't so bad a crime -- just sounds like pointless sexism.
Also, juries ARE encouraged to look
> at the "intent" of the accused; if the accused has raped a woman
> who's 6 months pregnant, for example, the jury can certainly
> consider that in assessment of his culpability.
Look at the fact she was pregnant in determining guilt? -- no. For
sentence? I don't think so. The judge sentences, and the sentences for
rape are set in CA, with specific elements for the varies categories.
>As for the status
> of the victim, her sexual history may not be considered, but her
> sexual history with the defendant may indeed be an important con-
> sideration.
But the point is that we don't judge how much she was hurt (beyond the
harm from being raped, which is established by the fact that it is a
crime) in deciding whether the rapist is guilty or should be punished.
[snip since the rest is repetitive of the above]
Stephanie
Bonnie Rubbert
othThere are Lesbians who are guilty of rape of other women and often
innocent young women and children and should be caught and punished, Ido
not mean the majority of lesbians. x
x
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> >> that the "rape" of a woman has different risks than does the
>> >> "sexual assault" of a man due to issues related to gestation.
>
>> It doesn't matter. The "rape" is an assault on her sexuality,
i.e.
>> on her right to enjoy normal het sex. He is taking something
from
>> her that he CANNOT take from a normal het male, even without the
>> possibility of pregnancy. If you shoot a man sitting in a chair
>> who is already dead, you can still be accused of attempted
murder.
>> The intent of the rapist to take what he cannot have re: the
>> woman's right to enjoy a normal het sexual relationship, and the
>> possibility of pregnancy makes the two, IMO, different.
>> -------
>female and that rape is less harmful to a sterile woman than one who
is>capable of reproducing.
-------
For all practical purposes, a lesbian woman would not be harmed
as much as a het woman in her pursuit of her own sex life, but
she would also have the possibility of pregnancy. In the case
of a sterile woman, she would not be as "effected" but the
"intent" in the rape would still include that harm, since the
rapist had no knowledge of her sterility. A generic definition
of a crime will ALWAYS have exceptions; unless those excep-
tions eat up the rule, they will only be exceptions.
------
Heck if we apply your standards there are many>many woman who couldn't
be raped. Severely mentally retarded women>couldn't be raped.
Catholic nuns couldn't be raped. Lesbians with>their tubes tied
couldn't be raped. Old lesbians couldn't be raped.
------
Are you suggesting that nuns or mentally handicapped women can't
get pregnant or aren't entitled to a het. sex life. Being a nun is
only a religious vow, and not up for discussion regarding their
human right to have one. Tubal ligations are only 96% accurate
which means that they STILL face the possibility of prengnancy and
are still entitled to a het sex life....if they want one.
-------
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <Pine.PMDF.3.91.9611212...@swt.edu> Chris Veal
<cv3...@swt.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>Women may get pregnant. A woman's self life may be ruined forever.
>However, a woman generally does not have to live with her assailant(s)
>for years on end like male rape victims in prison have to.
------
There are also cases of women, sexually assaulting women in prison.
"Rape", whenever it occurs can be traumatic to the victim. Do you
think that a woman, sexually assaulted, with a broom handle by
other women inmates, is going to have the possibility of being able
to enjoy sex with men at some future time? I don't think she will
"connect" that type of sexual assault with het sex. Prison rape is
an abomination. It doesn't, however, alter my position, that women
suffer greater consequences of rape, all else being comparable.....
....and there is still the issue of the possibility of pregnancy; a
broom handle can't accomplish that.
--------
>
>Of course, we are talking about female rapists, not male rapists. I
just >have a hard time with general statements saying women have a
harder time >dealing with rape than men.
---------
Except that is not what I was really saying. I was saying that
women have "more consequences" to be considered. If the same
type of prison "rape" you discribed previously was perpetrated by
the same male prisoner viz a male victim and then a female victim,
(except for vaginal penetration to the female) the female
victim could suffer all that you described, plus the consequences
of pregnancy.
Kirk Job Sluder
Newsgroups line trimmed (why rec.org.mensa?)
I guess one of the questions I have is whether the potential
for damage should be written into the actual law, when
actual damages can certainly be addressed during the
sentencing phase and in civil courts?
I think that using possibility for pregnancy in order to
differentiate between two different types of sexual assault
seems to be splitting those hairs a bit fine.
--
Kirk Job Sluder
csl...@indiana.edu
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html
Chris Veal
On 22 Nov 1996, Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> In <Pine.PMDF.3.91.9611212...@swt.edu> Chris Veal
> <cv3...@swt.edu> writes:
> >
> >Women may get pregnant. A woman's sex life may be ruined forever.
> >However, a woman generally does not have to live with her assailant(s)
> >for years on end like male rape victims in prison have to.
>
> There are also cases of women, sexually assaulting women in prison.
> "Rape", whenever it occurs can be traumatic to the victim. Do you
> think that a woman, sexually assaulted, with a broom handle by
> other women inmates, is going to have the possibility of being able
> to enjoy sex with men at some future time? I don't think she will
> "connect" that type of sexual assault with het sex. Prison rape is
> an abomination. It doesn't, however, alter my position, that women
> suffer greater consequences of rape, all else being comparable.....
> ....and there is still the issue of the possibility of pregnancy; a
> broom handle can't accomplish that.
That still doesn't challenge my statement. Women _generally_ don't
have to live with her assailant(s) for years on end like male rape
victims in prison. It is common knowledge that men make up a far
greater proportion of the prison population.
>
> >Of course, we are talking about female rapists, not male rapists. I
> >just have a hard time with general statements saying women have a
> >harder time dealing with rape than men.
>
> Except that is not what I was really saying. I was saying that
> women have "more consequences" to be considered. If the same
> type of prison "rape" you discribed previously was perpetrated by
> the same male prisoner viz a male victim and then a female victim,
> (except for vaginal penetration to the female) the female
> victim could suffer all that you described, plus the consequences
> of pregnancy.
Not necessarily, the female can stop conception with hormones in the
first 72 hours, take RU 486 within the first trimester, or obtain an
abortion up to the point of birth. Considering this, I think the
consequences of contracting STDs far outweigh the consequences of
pregnancy. Anyone can get STDS. I don't think your pregnancy statement
adequately supports your argument.
Lorne Beaton
In article <56mje1$o...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Steven Malcolm Anderson <sm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <328D64...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com>
>writes:
>
>>Rape is a crime of violence and not sex. It is about power and
>>subjugation of one person by another. In my view, it is most often
>>associated with men, because of an excess of testosterone in their
>>systems. Women do not often have an excess of testosterone.
>
Nonsense. That's a ridiculous overgeneralization. The physiological
functions of testosterone and estrogen are not the same. Men's bodies
produce some estrogen, and women's bodies produce some testosterone. To
assume that they have equal and opposite effects depending on whether
they're operating in a male or female body is just silly.
>Both sexes can be violent.
That's true, although I'm pretty sure that empirical data would back up
the common-sense belief that men are more often violent than women. On the
other hand, I don't know where Jubal got the idea that an excess of
testosterone "causes" rape. That's another unsupported overgeneralization.
How does he define an "excess" of testosterone? Do, say, body-builders who
take steroids tend to commit more rapes than ones who don't take them?
--
Lorne Beaton: bea...@server.uwindsor.ca
--
"Asking is just polite DEMANDING." -- Max Headroom
Yvon Decelles
Where : talk.religion.misc
Who : bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster)
When : 21 Nov 1996 00:41:39 GMT
<< Follow-up sent in newsgroup as well as Email
<<Please reply in newsgroup as well so all can participate.
>Giving a man extra doses of testosterone
>does very little to change his behavior. In fact, aberrant and violent
>behavior in men is more highly correlated with a testosterone *deficit*.
You obviously have never taken steroid to say that. I suggest you take
a 3 months cure and find out.
They didn't event the term "roid' rage" for nothing.
#include standard.disclaim
The above is my own opinion and should not be associate to
any of my former, current or future employers.
For those of you who can't help but correct my english please
*DO* but remember that this isn't mother tongue. If you don't
like how I type then pay me an english course.
James Buster
In article <574ahn$3...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In the case of a sterile woman, she would not be as "effected" but the
> "intent" in the rape would still include that harm,
Since when has it ever been, as a matter of broad generality, the intent of
any male het rapist to impregnate his victim?
James Buster
In article <57495j$e...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
> broom handle can't accomplish that.
Therefore there is no difference between a man or woman who rapes a woman
with a broom handle, and thus they deserve identical sentences.
William Hartwell
In article <E1ACK...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
Lorne Beaton <bea...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>That's true, although I'm pretty sure that empirical data would back up
>the common-sense belief that men are more often violent than women. On the
>other hand, I don't know where Jubal got the idea that an excess of
>testosterone "causes" rape. That's another unsupported overgeneralization.
>How does he define an "excess" of testosterone? Do, say, body-builders who
>take steroids tend to commit more rapes than ones who don't take them?
Don't know about as a general rule, but in interpersonal relationships,
the common-sense belief is totally bogus. Empirical data (references
available on request) demonstrates that the difference in overall levels
of violence between men and women is statistically insignificant. In
study after study, women demonstrate slightly higher levels of violence
than men, but still within that margin of statistical error, for the most
part.
Also, Jubal is somewhat in error in his assumption. In those cases where
studies of hormones in relationship to violence have been done, it's
usually a *deficit* of testosterone (in men) that is associated with excess
violence.
Anpwhotep
--
Rev. Bill Hartwell whar...@nyx.net
Hm Ntrw, Wab Anpw, Anpwhotep http://www.nyx.net/~whartwel
By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay to the recipient a reading fee of $10/line.
Kep Brown
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> > So you are saying rape is less harmful to a lesbian than a het.
> >female and that rape is less harmful to a sterile woman than one who
> is>capable of reproducing.
>
> -------
> For all practical purposes, a lesbian woman would not be harmed
> as much as a het woman in her pursuit of her own sex life, but
> of a sterile woman, she would not be as "effected" but the
> rapist had no knowledge of her sterility.
Your original arguement was that men can't be raped because they
can't get pregnant and that rape affects men less because they don't
fear pregnancy. Now unless you have some evidence that rapists "intend"
to get their victims pregnant the inclussion of sterile women as capable
of being rape victims would mean the inclussion of gay men. Rape should
be defined by the acts of the rapist not based on the reproductive
capasities of the victim.
> A generic definition
> of a crime will ALWAYS have exceptions; unless those excep-
> tions eat up the rule, they will only be exceptions.
> ------
You are providing supporting arguements for your definition of a
crime not defining it. The definition was that only women can be raped,
the reproductive and enjoyment of a sex life are the supporting
arguements. Since by your own admition your supporting arguements are
flawed the definition itself is flawed. Unless of course you want the
definition to be "only those capable of reproduction and practicing a
staight lifestyle" in which case there is no longer a generic definition
but a very specific one.
>
> Heck if we apply your standards there are many>many woman who couldn't
> be raped. Severely mentally retarded women>couldn't be raped.
> Catholic nuns couldn't be raped. Lesbians with>their tubes tied
> couldn't be raped. Old lesbians couldn't be raped.
>
> ------
> Are you suggesting that nuns or mentally handicapped women can't
> get pregnant or aren't entitled to a het. sex life. Being a nun is
> only a religious vow, and not up for discussion regarding their
> human right to have one.
Human right? Your original arguement was based on the effects on
their subsequent sex lives. If we are going to argue based on the
victims "human right" to a sex life then we are going to have to once
again include men since they have a "human right" to a gay sex life and
being raped could intefere with it.
> Tubal ligations are only 96% accurate
> which means that they STILL face the possibility of prengnancy and
> are still entitled to a het sex life....if they want one.
> -------
Then once that possibility is erased they are no longer rape
victims? Also men are intitled to a gay life style if they want one
just as suredly as sterile lesbians are intitled to a het. sex life. No
matter how you argue the exclussion of men from the deffinition of rape
base upon your premises will include a population of women. Now if you
are willing to tell them they can't be raped then be my guest, otherwise
your premise is nothing but sexist.