lje@mtfmp.UUCP (L.ELSER) (01/01/70)
What does David mean by "things we (women) can do
to avoid rape"?? Does he mean stay home and lock the
doors? I find that answer totally unacceptable.
Several years ago the campus police at my school
came up with a novel way of handling the problem
of rape on campus. When they saw a woman or a small
group of women walking after dark, they would hand
them cards that said
"If I were a rapist, you'ld be in trouble."
Women have every right to go to the library, the
dining hall, other dorms, stores, bars, etc.
without being accosted. Our presence on the streets
at night (or during the day) does not provoke rape.
We should not be expected to lock ourselves away or
be constantly escorted.
It is unfortunate that we ARE expected to curtail our
activities to "avoid" rape. I take Karate in part to
learn how I can protect myself. I will not hide like
a child from the world to "avoid" rape, but I WILL
be damn sure I can run, scream, and, if necessary, kill
to prevent rape. This may sound unnecessarily bitchy
or paranoid, but I live in a city, I enjoy my freedom,
and I will defend myself with no more force than
I need to get away. If that includes seriously injuring
someone who has attacked me (and, I must presume, would
not hesitate to do me harm!!) so be it.
Define your terms, please, David. I believe that every
woman should learn self-defense, and be prepared to use it,
but NO ONE is responsible for the actions of criminals
but the criminals themselves.
Lisalaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/03/83)
Personally, I think that rape is assault. I would like it to not have a separate classification. this perpetuates the idea that sex is something either dirty or mysterious, or otherwise very different from the rest of life. But then i do not find the idea that somebody raped someone else any different than the idea that someone beat up somebody else, or otherwise attacked them. I have been told that I am strange in this respect -- I wonder if I am. One of the trouble with existing rape laws, is that it is difficult to decide when a rape has actually occurred. Over the years of reading a writing netnews about 5 people have written to me after I submitted something to net.singles with the same problem and the same proposed solution. They were shy male virgins who wanted to stop being shy male virgins. But they didn't know how to talk to women. (Or they thought that they didn't -- actually they were very good at it, but I had to tell them that). Only one of them is still on the net, and he still writes to me sometimes. They decided that they would try to talk to me, hundreds of miles away, where I couldn't hurt them, and if they could handle that they would work up to the attractive girl in their chemistry class... So I wrote to them. But it occurred to me at the time that had I been so inclined I could have driven to wherever they were and offered to take away the virginity. I bet that I would have been accepted every time. It occurred to me also that I'll bet there are a lot of men in my situation. This is a very scary situation. I doubt that any of my correspondants, had they gone home and talked to their parents and decided that they wanted their virginity back could get away with charging me with rape. I'm 5'4", after all -- it would be hard to conceive of me raping anyone. But suppose I was 6'5" and male... the thought makes me shudder. Which is why I think that if it is rape, I would like to see some bruises or the marks where the ropes were. "i was so frightened that I didn't do anything" doesn't sound very good to me. So I have a few questions. First of all, do you think that rape and assault should be considered separate offenses? if so why? And for you guys out there -- do you worry about getting charged with rape? If you do, what do you do about it? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/04/83)
==========
So I have a few questions. First of all, do you think that rape
and assault should be considered separate offenses? if so why?
And for you guys out there -- do you worry about getting charged
with rape? If you do, what do you do about it?
Laura Creighton
==========
One possible reason for conisdering rape to be assault rather than
a "sexual" offense is that it seems to be about the only "sexual"
crime whose rate does not go down dramatically when pornography
is legalized. This suggests that the only sexual aspect to rape
is the fact that women are generally physically weak and rape is
a strong demonstration of male power over the victim.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtdave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/04/83)
Laura's point about treating rape as assault is a valid one, though
I don't quite agree with the rest of her argument.
The Canadian Criminal Code was amended about a year ago to get rid of
the definition of "rape" which required proving such things as penetration
(and the fact that the two were not married). The offenses now are
- sexual assault
and - aggravated sexual assault
Whether the victim is male or female is irrelevant to the charge.
Obviously, in light of the current discussion, the changes to the Code
have hardly succeeeded entirely in changing the public's approach to
rape to be one of assault. But the legislation now correctly treats
the crime as one of violence, not sexual passion.
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!daveroberta@azure.UUCP (Roberta Taussig) (12/07/83)
Laura Creighton said she would want to see "... some bruises or the marks where the ropes were" before she would allow a woman to bring charges of rape. That is so remarkably uncompassionate and unimaginative that it surprises me she said it. How much of a mark does a knife an eighth of an inch from the jugular or a pistol three feet from the head leave? I, too, am a short woman. How about the marks left by a 6 foot tall, 200 lb. man backing me into a dark alley and convincing me I face rape either with or without additional damage, and he doesn't much care which? Do you suppose the woman gang-raped on the pool table in New Bedford to the cheers of the onlookers had any visible bruises? I tend to agree with her that rape should be assault, but its nature may require it to be treated separately since its essence is the consent or lack thereof of the recipient. No matter how you cut it, somebody can be victimized. The law is supposed to protect the weak from the strong. Women, as she noted, tend to be weaker than men. We are, moreover, so constructed that we can not prevent intercourse if a sufficiently strong, agile male decides to inflict it. I think, therefore, that a woman should get the benefit of the doubt under the law. Note that I am not advocating she be believed without reservation, just that her testimony be considered valid evidence even in the absence of visible damage or corroborating witnesses. Roberta Taussig Tektronix Beaverton, Oregon ...!ucbvax!tektronix!tekmdp!roberta ...!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!roberta
fischer@eosp1.UUCP (12/07/83)
Laura, I'm really having a hard time believing you mean the things you
said about rape. If you do, it reminds me of a famous rape case in England
a century or more ago where the defense attorney handed the victim a pen,
and challenged her to put it into an open ink bottle he was holding. He,
of course, moved the bottle every time she attempted to place the pen in
the bottle. He thereby "proved" that it was impossible to rape an unwilling
woman.
Very recently, in the town I live in, a woman was raped. She was walking
to her car when a man came up behind her, grabbed her by the throat, and
placed a large knife in her mouth. Would you like to tell me how much
resistance you would be willing to put up in a situation like this? Perhaps
she should have been more cautious about walking alone in dark parking lots,
but, given you were there, with the knife in YOUR mouth, would you struggle?
Or, imagine the knife replaced with a gun. More simply still, if you had a
choice between just being raped, and being raped and also having the s**t
beat out of you, which one would you choose? Getting beat up isn't very
pleasant, especially if you have reason to believe that your attacker might
get a little carried away and injure you permanently, or perhaps kill you.
If a rape victim perceives her life as being in danger, why does she HAVE to
struggle? Demanding bruises and rope marks to verify a charge of rape is
equivalent to saying that no one should be allowed to charge anyone else of
a crime unless they can prove that they exhausted every conceivable means of
preventing that crime. All the rapist would have to say is, "Well, she
didn't fight too hard, so I guess I figured she didn't really mind. I wouldn't
REALLY have killed her."
The average rape victim is weak and vulnerable. Women as old as 80 or 90
and children as young as 2 and 3 are raped. Just because YOU feel secure in
your ability to defend yourself does not give you the right to cast doubt on
all rapes where the victim did not.
Elizabeth Fischer
Exxon Office Systems
decvax!ittvax!eosp1!fischer
or allegra!eosp1!fischeranderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (12/07/83)
This is in response to Laura Creighton's (utzoo!utcsstat!laura) submission to net.singles, net.legal, & net.women about rape. To use her own words (not necessarily against her): Personally, I think that rape is assault. I would like it to not have a separate classification. this perpetuates the idea that sex is something either dirty or mysterious, or otherwise very different from the rest of life. But then i do not find the idea that somebody raped someone else any different than the idea that someone beat up somebody else, or otherwise attacked them. Certainly, rape is not a crime of passion or sex, but merely violence. However, I think that most people feel that sex is very special, that is associated only with feelings of love and caring. Rape shreds all those associations, which then has profound psychological implications. The physical damage in a rape may be less than in an assault and battery (then again, maybe not; I've read about some pretty awful rapes), but it is far less important that the mental torment the woman goes through. One can be reminded of an assault everytime one walks down a dark alley, but a rape victim may be reminded of a rape every time she makes love. What a rotten time to remember such abuse! To take something beautiful and positive, and to make it ugly and negative: that's how rape is different from assault. Furthermore, people can UNDERSTAND a beating. We grow up with being hit, whether by parents or the bully down the street. We've also hit other people, in rage or in fear or simply to take away a toy. It's no fun to be hit, but the action is familiar and understandable to some extent. Rape is not; it's totally incomprehensible, I think, to anyone but a rapist. I can imagine myself hitting someone; I can even imagine myself killing someone; rape, never. Laura also mentioned some boys/men she has corresponded with. A further excerpt from her article: They were shy male virgins who wanted to stop being shy male virgins. . . . So I wrote to them. But it occurred to me at the time that had I been so inclined I could have driven to wherever they were and offered to take away the virginity. I bet that I would have been accepted every time. . . . I'm 5'4", after all -- it would be hard to conceive of me raping anyone. But suppose I was 6'5" and male... the thought makes me shudder. Luv that first line! Anyhow, unless Laura contradicts me, I'll confess to having been one of her shy mail virgins, and I'll tell you right now that I would NOT have accepted you Laura; sorry. There's a BIG difference between making love and having sex. I was much more concerned with finding someone to love who loves me in return than I was with losing my virginity. (For $100, I could have lost the virginity anytime; I also know a number of loose women.) The difference is quite relevant to this rape discussion: There is a lot more to sex (and hence, rape) than the physiology, while a beating is just a beating. My last sentence doesn't deal with either rape or assault by a husband or other loved one. Those issues are very sticky and I don't know how to deal with them. So I have a few questions. First of all, do you think that rape and assault should be considered separate offenses? if so why? And for you guys out there -- do you worry about getting charged with rape? If you do, what do you do about it? Yes, rape should be separate and much more nastily punished. I don't worry about getting charged with rape. I'd never make love to a woman (1) without knowing she'd never so charge me, and (2) without being able to demonstrate that this was a long-term, stable relationship and not a one-night stand. At the very least, I'd have to go under the "rape by husbands and other lovers" laws. Yuck. Scott D. Anderson decvax!ittvax!anderson
akp@isrnix.UUCP (12/08/83)
#R:utcsstat:-150900:isrnix:16700005:000:1927
isrnix!akp Dec 7 01:08:00 1983
How refreshingly elightened is the Canadian legislature! In Indiana, the male
is ALWAYS responsible for "statutory rape", regardless of the circumstances
of the contact. (At least, I was led to believe this when I was underage...)
If one or many males were with one or many females under 16, without a guardian
(or other Responsible Person), after midnight, they were guilty of statutory
rape. Bad craziness. But the word "sexual" is still on the books ("Sexual
assault")? Yes, there is definitely a difference between raping someone and,
say, mugging or just swinging at him/her. The distinction must remain, and
the punishment for the former must be greater: consider that a woman can become
pregnant as a result of rape (a friend of mine did), and that is certainly
not possible from nonsexual contact. On the other hand, why do you find the
idea that "I was so scared I didn't struggle" hard to swallow? Seems perfectly
natural to me. Say you're out on the street and somebody with a gun demands
your wallet. Are you going to struggle? There was a marvelous piece posted on
the bulletin boards around here a while ago -- I may quote the whole thing
sometime. Basically it was a man being interrogated after a mugging.
"So a man took your wallet."
Yes.
"Did you struggle?"
No; he had a knife, and I was afraid.
"So you consciously made a decision to comply with his demands."
Yes.
"Have you ever been mugged before?"
No.
"Have you ever GIVEN money away?"
Yes -- I am a successful lawyer, after all.
"Indeed; you have quite a reputation for philanthropy."
What are you getting at?
"What were you wearing?"
A suit.
"An expensive suit?"
Yes -- like I said, I am a successful lawyer.
"Then you were practically advertising that you would be an easy target for
a mugger; that you had plenty of money. Weren't you practically ASKING to be
mugged?"
...and so it goes.
-- Allan Pratt
...decvax!ihnp4!isrnix!akpjbf@ccieng5.UUCP (just being friendly) (12/09/83)
I think Laura was looking at life more from the man's point of view
in her rape article. It is true that a woman can be put through quite
a bit without leaving a mark. However, that hardly justifies convicting
innocent people on flimsy evidence.
Elizabeth recites the example of a woman who was raped by threatening
her with a knife in her mouth. Picture yourself on a jury supposed to judge
such a case. The complainant says that the defendant raped her by brutally
threatening her (with a deadly weapon). The defendant claims the complainant
has had a clandestine relationship with him for quite a while, and is merely
getting her revenge on him because he doesn't want to marry her (please don't
flame at me for this scenario -- there are many others which may be convincing
depending on more precise circumstances: choose one you like best).
In the end this is all the evidence you get. Either one of the stories
could be true. You have the choice of either possibly letting a rapist go,
or possibly ruining the life of an innocent man even beyond the point that it
has already been damaged by merely being involved in a rape trial.
I find the second alternative the more horrifying. I would rather go
through several rapes that left me unscarred but frightened than spend
much of my life in prison, where rape may be the routine. Most women do not
find the false accusal frightening at all, since they will never be in such
a position.
I have always avoided the risk of being falsely accused of rape by a very
simple method: the first time I have sex with a girl, I choose a conspicuous
location. Since many people will notice that she is perfectly willing, any
subsequent accusals of rape will have low credibility.laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/09/83)
Aha, but what i would *really* like to see are very, very, very tough rape and assault laws. But i do not think that you can get them while it is possible for the guy to be 'framed'. So you get really short sentences for such crimes. And you get people who believe that 'the rapist is not responsible for his actions and only a product of our strange society's preoccupation with sex'. I would like it if these people associated rape with violence and did not try to make ammends for the Puritanitism of their forefathers by letting rapists walk the streets. The disadvantage of having heavy penalties for rape is, of course, that the rapist may decide to kill his victim to prevent identification. And if you condone capital punishment then you had better be damn sure that you are executing a rapist, and not killing an innocent. The other end of this is to remember that the law does not protect you from rape or assault -- it only gives you something to do to offenders. (the arguments as to whether X is really 'deterred' by punishment Y can go on for years.) Given this understanding of the law, it is necessary to remember that people *will* get raped. Clearly rape is not a very nice thing -- but there are several questions which must be raised if you are going to reevaluate the rape (sexual assault) law. For one thing, it is considered to be a very bad thing even if the victim was only sexually assaulted, but not physically assaulted. Why? is it really all that terrible, or is it merely that people are conditioned to believe that it is terrible? if the problem is that society teaches women to believe that sex is more special than it really is, then should we expect our courts to uphold this belief? Maybe we should try to change that belief instead. If, on the other hand, the sex act *is* (for most people) something that special and wonderful, regardless of the media hype, then rape and assault should *not* be classified as the same offense, since the sex act is what is significant. (perhaps you can charge rapists who assault their victims with rape *and* with assault.) By the way -- around here if you pull a gun or knife or other dangerous weapon on someone you get charged with assault -- are the laws different in the US? The last problem is one of ethics. Does society have the obligation to protect those who will not try to protect themselves and others? Why or why not? Of course, there are loopholes in no matter what is decided -- ranging from kidney punches that show no marks (though blood in the urine may tell) to people who will not fight due to strong moral beliefs (as opposed to, say, fear). laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/09/83)
reply to Scott Anderson: Certainly, rape is not a crime of passion or sex, but merely violence. You would be surprised how many people do not believe this.. However, I think that most people feel that sex is very special, that is associated only with feelings of love and caring. I have my doubts about this. This definitely is the *ideal* of sex as it comes across in certain books or magazines, but I know a fair number of women who think that sex is a "duty" that they have to bear. It is interesting that these are not the "wives living up to the duty of servicing their husbands" (at least that I know -- there are probably still lots of those around) but women who are now "liberated" and feel that they *ought* to enjoy sex but don't. Somehow I don't think that that is quite liberation. On the other hand, you will find people who think that sex is a lot of fun, but that is all. And loving and caring are wonderful things but they are not necessarily connected with sex. I do not know whether these people are in the majority -- for this thing is terribly hard to measure. For one thing, it is hardly ever talked about and for another there are a good many people walking around who think that sex and love are not necessarily connected, but who would be loathe to admit this. Rape shreds all those associations, which then has profound psychological implications. I think that this is rather strong stuff. After all, if the associations are a good thing then they need not be shredded. On the other hand, if these associations are a commonly-held delusions, then separating them may be a very good thing in the long run. The better thing would be to disassociate the two so that such psychological damage will not occur. And if you do not have these associations then I do not think that you should be penalised if you are raped. For instance, in recent literature I read about women who are not believed when they claim to be raped because they are not suffering from this damage (at least yet). Somehow i do not think that this is what you want to encourage. The physical damage in a rape may be less than in an assault and battery (then again, maybe not; I've read about some pretty awful rapes), but it is far less important that the mental torment the woman goes through. One can be reminded of an assault everytime one walks down a dark alley, but a rape victim may be reminded of a rape every time she makes love. What a rotten time to remember such abuse! To take something beautiful and positive, and to make it ugly and negative: that's how rape is different from assault. I have some news for you -- you remember getting beat up everywhere as well. The other thing to consider is that taking walks is something beautiful, and assault is real good at uglification. It may be that some people will connect raping with making love, but this is a bad thing. And how are we going to stop this bad thing? I do not know, but I suggest that by not differentiating between rape and assault people can discover that rape *is* assault. This would be, in my opinion, a good thing, since the alternative is to consider rape something different *because* it is connected with sex, which is likely to perpetuate the condition you are trying to avoid. Furthermore, people can UNDERSTAND a beating. We grow up with being hit, whether by parents or the bully down the street. We've also hit other people, in rage or in fear or simply to take away a toy. It's no fun to be hit, but the action is familiar and understandable to some extent. Rape is not; it's totally incomprehensible, I think, to anyone but a rapist. I can imagine myself hitting someone; I can even imagine myself killing someone; rape, never. Aha, but if the world were full of people like you then there would be no problem. Saying that "Rape is totally incomprhensible" is not doing anything to consider the problem. I know at least one person who finds the idea of rape entirely comprehensible -- but he is a nice guy and does not rape people. I know more people who find the idea of any violence incomprehensible. Thus there is considerable variation. Saying "it is incomprehensible" only sets a standard which forces those who disagree with it underground or into a great confusion, neither of which is useful. Laura also mentioned some boys/men she has corresponded with. A further excerpt from her article: They were shy male virgins who wanted to stop being shy male virgins. . . . So I wrote to them. But it occurred to me at the time that had I been so inclined I could have driven to wherever they were and offered to take away the virginity. I bet that I would have been accepted every time. . . . I'm 5'4", after all -- it would be hard to conceive of me raping anyone. But suppose I was 6'5" and male... the thought makes me shudder. Luv that first line! Anyhow, unless Laura contradicts me, I'll confess to having been one of her shy mail virgins, and I'll tell you right now that I would NOT have accepted you Laura; sorry. Don't bother apologising, you weren't on the list. For one thing, you are not shy. All the people on that list expressly sent me mail saying that the express purpose of the correspondance was to see if they could actually *talk* to women. There's a BIG difference between making love and having sex. I was much more concerned with finding someone to love who loves me in return than I was with losing my virginity. (For $100, I could have lost the virginity anytime; I also know a number of loose women.) The difference is quite relevant to this rape discussion: There is a lot more to sex (and hence, rape) than the physiology, while a beating is just a beating. My last sentence doesn't deal with either rape or assault by a husband or other loved one. Those issues are very sticky and I don't know how to deal with them. Now here we have someing interesting: the old "loose women". And there is the problem of rape or assault by a loved one. This fits in very nicely with a scheme where there are only "good women" and "loose women". If you adopt this scheme it is relatively easy to know whether a rape occurred, since any sex is either 'respectable' (historically between married people, which can be extended to between people who love each other) or 'with a loose woman' or 'rape'. There are a lot of rape laws which seem phrased to preserve this scheme, and indeed a lot of rape trials centre around how 'respectable' the victim was. To my mind this is undesirable. No matter how 'loose' you are, you should not be still be able to choose your lovers. Thus trials which centre around 'well she had her top 3 buttons undone, therefore she was not respectable, therefore it was not rape' strike me as only reflections of this ancient attitude. I should think that ideally I should be able to walk around on the streets topless without getting raped -- though I am not going to try it. But if this is unreasonable, then it means that rape is not assault -- but it is primarily concerned with sex. Awful sex, but still sex. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (12/10/83)
I do not see why rape should be considered a more serious crime than violent assault. Both are horrible things, but I personally would rather be raped than beaten into a bloody pulp -- though I'd rather not have either happen to me. It seems to me that the severity of the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Rape is mostly a severe form of humiliation, but I can think of just as powerful methods of humiliating someone that are not illegal. Anyone who would rather be beaten into a bloody pulp rather than raped (with no other bodily harm done), I think, has a screwed up sense of values. -Doug Alan decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC
carey@seismo.UUCP (Marie Carey) (12/14/83)
I think Doug Alan's remarks about his preference to being raped versus being beaten up are LUDICROUS! Have you ever BEEN raped Doug Alan? Then how can you possibly compare the two? The effects of rape are emotional and probably never go away, but the effects of a beating are probably mostly physical and will heal within a certain amount of time (a few weeks?) I agree with Jeff Offcutt who states somewhat of the same thing about rape. And what about the woman who are raped AND beaten to a bloody pulp? What is it about some men who think rape is really nothing more than a risk women have to put up with BECAUSE they are women? THESE are the men to watch out for! As you can probably tell, this is something I feel strongly about and therefore just could not let such remarks pass me by. This may sound totally barbaric, but too bad not more women take the lead from Sondra Locke, who stars in the new Clint Eastwood movie, "Sudden Impact". She and her sister are gang raped by about five men and her sister turns into a vegetable because of the experience. Well, Miss Locke decides the only way to avenge her sister's condition is to locate and kill all of the rapists. Of course it won't help her sister's condition any, but it really gave one a sense of true justice watching her blow away the rapist's genitals and then give it to them once in the brain. I told you this was going to sound barbaric. BUT I wonder what the statistics are of those convicted rapists who are released on parole and then commit rape again? I know there is a good amount because I have read about several cases myself. Like I said, too bad not more women follow Miss Locke's (the character she plays in the film) example. At least the scumbags who raped would never rape again!
akp@isrnix.UUCP (12/15/83)
#R:ccieng5:-20200:isrnix:16700006:000:659 isrnix!akp Dec 12 01:31:00 1983 <=> >...the first time I have sex with a girl, I choose a conspicuous >location. Since many people will notice that she is perfectly willing... HUH? Do you have sex in public? In your living room with your picture window open and the lights on? Do you sell tickets? Seriously, I do not understand what you are saying. Might you go to a party where people will see that you are both physically inclined? There are no laws against flirtatiousness, and I would hope that no jury would acquit a man whose defense is, "She led me on, and I wouldn't let her get away with being a tease." Bewildered, -- Allan Pratt ...decvax!ihnp4!iuvax!isrnix!akp
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (12/15/83)
>> I think Doug Alan's remarks about his preference to being raped >> versus being beaten up are LUDICROUS! Have you ever BEEN raped >> Doug Alan? Then how can you possibly compare the two? The effects >> of rape are emotional and probably never go away, but the effects >> of a beating are probably mostly physical and will heal within a >> certain amount of time (a few weeks?) Have *you* ever been raped, seismo!carey? If not, how can *you* possibly compare the two? Let's not have a double standard here. Snoopy -- ) ( ) from the mildly opinionated keyboard of _)__________________ |OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO| Dave Seifert |OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO| ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert |OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO| |------------------|
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (12/18/83)
#R:mit-eddie:-102900:ucbesvax:10300026:000:1339 ucbesvax!turner Dec 11 18:17:00 1983 Doug Alan sets up the issue as a choice between assault as "being beaten to a bloody pulp" and rape (assuming no non-sexual physical abuse). This makes the question very easy, doesn't it? In fact, many--if not most--rapes do not involve such a choice--women are violently abused sexually *and* otherwise. (Also, most cases of assault fall short of bloody-pulp type beatings.) It's not clear to me that, short of mutilation, a credible threat of physical abuse is any less traumatic than the abuse itself--especially when such threats are employed persistently by the attacker to achieve his ends. The key issue is somewhat less tangible than Doug Alan would suggest--just how to compare loss of flesh (e.g., "bloody pulp" beatings) with loss of dignity and peace of mind (e.g., rape). Some rape victims take many years to recover, even if the physical damage they suffered was minimal. This is a a fact; it can't be ignored. Let's re-pose Doug's question: how much of a loss of self-esteem would he endure to avoid being beaten to a "bloody pulp"? Does he see these two kinds of damage as commensurable? How does he propose to measure the damage done to a rape victim, with a view toward establishing fair penalties? Or is there nothing he wouldn't do to avoid being beaten severely? --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (08/13/84)
Ok, let's have a vote. How many people think it's ok to sexually assault hookers? prostitutes? call girls? sluts? easy lays? loose women? non-virgins? Where do *you* draw the line?
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/14/84)
From jdh@hou5g.UUCP: >Ok, let's have a vote. > >How many people think it's ok to sexually assault hookers? >prostitutes? call girls? sluts? easy lays? loose women? >non-virgins? > >Where do *you* draw the line? I hope for your (and ours) sake that you merely forgot all those <-: that obviously accompanied your question. You did, right? this was a joke, in terrible taste, but a joke, right? right? Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (08/14/84)
Not a hard question. It's definitely **not** OK to sexually assault *anyone, anywhere, anytime.* Period. Lauri
paulh@tektronix.UUCP (Paul Hoefling) (08/14/84)
[libation] >> Ok, let's have a vote. >> >> How many people think it's ok to sexually assault hookers? >> prostitutes? call girls? sluts? easy lays? loose women? >> non-virgins? >> >> Where do *you* draw the line? >> Personally, I'd draw the line at sexually (or any other way) assaulting *no one* ! Regardless of their chosen profession or past sexual history, no body, male or female, deserves to be raped. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is still the best description of this situation. -- Paul Hoefling (...!tektronix!paulh)
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (08/15/84)
No attack on you Julie, but I can't justify physical abuse of anyone. I guess I'm surprised by this question. Peter decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (08/15/84)
I think I would draw the line right here
______________________________________________________________________
Ok, let's have a vote.
How many people think it's ok to sexually assault hookers?
prostitutes? call girls? sluts? easy lays? loose women?
non-virgins?
Where do *you* draw the line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For others who may flounder at this quandry, let me offer some assistance.
Rape concerns forced intentions. I don't see where a persons occupation
(e.g. prostitution) should illigitimize a persons right to say no.
IN OTHER WORDS -:
OK, let's have a vote.
How many people think it's ok to steal cars from used car dealers?, from
service garages?, from body shops?, rich neighborhoods?
Where do *you* draw the line?
Bruce Golub
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.vogon@deepthot.UUCP (hkt) (08/16/84)
[] i hope jdh is just joking rape is a *crime* no matter who the victims are!!
joe@zinfandel.UUCP (08/17/84)
#R:hou5g:-44500:zinfandel:17200016:000:397 zinfandel!joe Aug 15 08:54:00 1984 I would suggest you post a follow up to your rape article because it gives the impression that you accept sexual assault in some circumstances. It reminds me of a quote taken from the trial of a marginally civilized man on trial for beating his wife: " Hell! If you can't beat your WIFE, who CAN you beat?" . Your article gives the impression you are in his league. Joe Weinstein
joe@zinfandel.UUCP (08/17/84)
#R:hou5g:-44500:zinfandel:17200017:000:162 zinfandel!joe Aug 15 16:07:00 1984 I draw the line between those who think sexual assault is ok in any circumstances, and civilization. ps: Hooker, call girl and prostitute are synonymous.
plw@mgweed.UUCP (Pete Wilson) (08/18/84)
In September's issue of Redbook magazine, in response to a survey of sexual fantasies, the number 2 fantasy of the women responding is 'being raped or forced to have sex'. This, I hope, is a fantasy in itself. I don't know who the respondants were to this survey, but it certainly wasn't a cross section of normal women or at least women who have already experienced rape. I'm not familiar with the reputation of this magazine, but I trust it is not one of the more respected women's publications. Can you imagine what defense attorneys and judges would do with the results of this survey: "Sorry, hon, this guy isn't guilty of anything. You've just had one of your desires fulfilled". Disgusting. By the way, the numero uno fantasy of these women was 'having sex with a total stranger'.
za68@sdccsu3.UUCP (08/18/84)
I don't think the original article ("under what circumstances do you
think rape is okay..." or something to that effect) necessarily implied
that the author him/her self thought rape was ever ok.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I assumed the author might want to know
if *others* did beleive this, and if so, to discuss the point. It seems
that some people do think it's acceptable to rape hookers or "loose women,"
including, unfortunately, some judges. If this is indeed so, it is something
we should deal with. Outlooks like these will not just go away if we ignore
them or write off the people who think this way as scum.
And by the way, I do not think rape is ever okay, even (especially?)
between married people.
-Karen Pickensrobison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (08/20/84)
References: Numerous sources support the claim that fantasies of rape are very common among women. In this day and age, however, we should know better than to assume that these fantasies imply desire. For example, an obvious interpretation is: Given the dangerously high probability that any woman will be raped, every woman needs to comes to terms with the fear of rape. One way to live with this fear is to imagine that a rape will take the course of expected or even desired paths, and will be bearable. By fantasizing rapes which she (in effect) plans herself, a woman makes the fear of actual rape easier to bear. We should be ashamed that we cannot offer women better defenses than these. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/21/84)
From Karen Pickens: > It seems that some people do think it's acceptable to rape hookers or "loose > women," including, unfortunately, some judges. Rape is always a violation of the victim's personhood, no matter who the victim. While both rape and prostitution involve sex without love, or at least without commitment (one could debate whether doing everything possible to please the client is in some sense love, or just good business), in the case of the prostitute she has some say, some choice in the matter. Granted, if she works for a pimp I imagine she has less choice, in which case perhaps the pimp should be prosecuted for second-hand rape. Consider the situation: a pimp and a rapist both have/take power over one or more women to make them have sex; it's just that the rapist forces the woman to have sex with him, while the pimp, through economic or other pressure, puts the women in a spot where they cannot avoid having sex with other men. (I wonder what percentage of pimps avail themselves of the services of their subordinates -- presumably for free? An idle question.) Perhaps, in a sense, pimps are even worse than rapists. > And by the way, I do not think rape is ever okay, even (especially?) > between married people. I agree, and I appreciate the mention of rape in marriage. Marriage needs to be a continual process of each partner affirming the other's personhood; it is not a license for either partner to have sex with the other without that other's agreement. The rape of one spouse by the other is just as much a violation of personhood as a rape where the people involved have never met. The gender-neutral language in the last sentence suggests two possibilities for discussion: rape of men by women, and homosexual rape; neither of these has been mentioned in anything I've read so far. I myself am not passionately interested (though not uninterested) in discussing either; I merely put them up as grist for the mill if anyone wants to use them as such. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq [the man with the cornrowed chest hair :-)]
crs@lanl-a.UUCP (08/21/84)
As I recall, the article that asked "where do you draw the line?" in regard to prostitutes, callgirls, etc. was a sarcastic followup to an earlier article that complained that rape statistics were inflated by inclusion of rapes of prostitutes, callgirls, etc. The incredible thing (to me) is that while many have flamed at the poster of the sarcasm, few had anything to say about the original article, which seemed, indeed, to imply that rape of a prostitute should not be included in the statistics (ie shouldn't count as rape). Charlie Sorsby ...!lanl-a!crs
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/23/84)
I, for one, never saw this original article which implied raping prostitutes was OK. I wonder if it got dropped from a large part of the distribition? Usenet is not the most reliable communication means I've ever seen (although it is one of the more entertaining). Or perhaps the comment was embedded in a 150 line article. I've submitted a few of those myself, in other groups, but I'm always surprised when I find out somebody actually read the whole thing. Jeff Winslow
ted@teldata.UUCP (08/23/84)
**************************************************************** Rape or assault is NEVER appropriate. Doesn't matter what a woman's profession or sexual habits are, none would justify rape or assault. The matter of rape fantasies was mentioned. If a woman wants to act out one of these fantasies and has arranged for it to happen then technically it is not rape since she has given consent. When a woman enjoys physical roughness it is not assault, if she wishes it to happen. Any man who thinks he is being asked to perform this kind of action should make damn sure that is what she is requesting. My days on the net are about to end. If you must respond do so to: PO Box 153, Bothell, WA 98041 (206) 743-3890
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (09/26/84)
Re: psychological rape:
Since the difference between sex and rape is consent, and presumably
in many rapes the woman is still protesting the rape as sex is forced on her,
in the situation where the man so intimidates the woman that she fears grave
bodily injury or death by protesting, she may verbally consent to sex in
reply to psychological rape (mental coercion) to prevent that bodily harm.
Thus the entire experience remains rape in her mind, even though after some
threshold she has verbally acquiesced to sex in order to prevent harm.
Imagine, e.g. a 5'2" 100lb woman up against a 250lb 6'6" hunk. Sheer terror.
No conceivable way for her to physically resist. If he seems intent despite
protest, it can be safer to acquiese than to fight. There doesn't have to
be ANY physical struggle involved at all...she knows it won't work to resist.
Therefore the "violence" of the rape is conducted on a psychological level.
Many seem to have indicated that physical violence is required to constitute
rape.
Sunny
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny :-> Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/03/84)
> To place an individual, a rapist, in a position which has the postential > to make the rapist the raped is the point which would cause the rapist to > inflict punishment on himself, psychologically at least. I think you're dead wrong!!! From what I understand, the most common reason for people to get sex changes is because they feel in their minds that they are in the wrong body. If you follow this logically, a rapist with a sex change would still feel like a man (In the most common form of rape, male attacks female). I also don't think that he would keep that anger inside, but would be MORE likely to continue attacking women, simply because he feels they are to blame. He would most likely do more harm to society than he would to himself (I guess this should be changed to "she" now, although it is still my feeling that he/she/it would still feel masculine). OK, so now he can't rape women. He can still assault them physically and kill them. On top of this, I feel, without a question of a doubt, that this would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment"! Especially unusual. By forcing a person to walk around in a body which is not, in all aspects, how he knows himself IS torture. Therefore it is also cruel. I think putting a rapist in prison for a minimum sentence of, oh, say, twenty years would be more like it. I also would have no real complaint if the death penalty was used in exceptionally violent cases. I hate to have to say this, but a sex change as punishment for rapist has to, without a question of a doubt, *the most* assinine idea I have ever heard of regarding this subject. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "When you were done, you just threw down the blade. And the red blood spread like the anger you'd made ... "
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (12/12/84)
>I'd like to remind everyone that: anybody who feels that human >beings should be routinely allowed to follow their genetic >proclivities must, to be consistent, encourage everyone to >dispense with toilet training. This is one of the strongest >examples of society agreeing that, even at great emotional cost >to the individual, we should impose civilized behaviour on top of >our genetic inclinations. > >Logically there is no middle ground here. You either believe: > > (a) It is natural and acceptable to follow genetic proclivities, or > > (b) Society rightfully decides in each case whether to suppress > geentic inclinations. > >If (as I believe) the latter is true, than identifying genetic >inclinations is IRRELEVANT to determining whether behaviour is >acceptable. > > - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) > {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison There are other possibilites than the two provided. First and foremost, "society" doesn't do anything. What we view as society is merely the sum of the actions of the individuals who make it up. Some actions are damaging to the other members and steps are taken to stop this. Right or wrong really doesn't enter into it, except that each member will act in accordance with his or her own view of same. Unfortunately, society is also filled with a lot of busybodies, who are sure that their own view of right and wrong should be imposed on all, rather than just keeping people from damaging each other. I am not trying to quibble; I just take exception to the words 'society rightfully decides in each case'. Quite often, they don't. I agree with Toby's conclusion that the 'genetic inclinations are IRRELEVANT to determining whether behaviour is acceptable'. They might modify what steps are taken to change the behavior, though. Obviously, rape is not a borderline case. It is a clear-cut case of one person actively harming another. It should be dealt with as strongly as possible. However, as has been pointed out by others on the net, it is very difficult to prevent (from a police point of view). It seems that the only effective deterrent is self-defence knowlege on the part of women. It shouldn't have to be this way (in the best of all possible worlds) but I really see no alternative. I DON'T want police standing on all the corners, and the logistics of the same are prohibitive, anyway. People should come to the aid of those being attacked. They don't. I don't think a weapon is the answer, because unless you are very good with it (and fully ready to use it) you could find yourself on the business end of it. A good swift kick does not have this drawback, however. no answers, but looking, geoff sherwood
leff@smu (07/15/85)
There is no more reason for a women walking down the street to fear rape than a parent has to fear that their child will contract polio. A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at least half way down the street in four directions. They can be mounted on separate towers or suspended on wire rope suspended between buildings or traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras output would be transmitted to the police station. Such a system has been installed on a trial basis on a few corners in University Park at a cost of $6,000 per camera. The area covered by each camera (halfway down each of four city blocks) would contain at least 50 households. Thus the one time installation cost would be about $300.00/household. One person could monitor 30 cameras. At four fourty hour shifts per week and at $10,000/year for a minimum wage employee including benefits, it would take $40,000 a year to monitor these thirty cameras or a cost of about $1000 dollar a year/camera. Since each camera is protecting 50 households, we have a twenty dollar/year/household cost for monitoring. As you can see the costs are low compared to either the per capita cost for criminal justice or the charge for something like cable tv. In many urban areas, the density would be much higher than fifty households on four half blocks so the per household cost would be much lower than specified. Motion detectors that would only show those streets with a person or car on it could be used, we could increase the number of cameras per monitoring person. This would reduce continuing costs still further. The audio system would be programmed to detect sounds like screams, thus guaranteeing that every screem would be heard and more importantly acted upon. These cameras would totally eliminate street crime since it would be impossible to commit same without being caught. It would be like having a cop at every corner at a fraction of the expense. Any women walking alone would feel like they were being escorted with an escort that could summon the police instantaneously. In addition the cameras could be connected to videotape systems to provide evidence in the event of a prosecution. They could also be used to keep track of any person leaving the scene of a crime so the police could apprehend them easily. Technology has eliminated such dangers as tuberculosis and polio to the point where they are no longer even talked about by the general populus. People were once fearful of catching these dread diseases. Now they are no longer on people's minds. In the 1980s, crime is the most feared thing on peoples minds. The fear of rape has caused women to change their lifestyle, the jobs they take and where they live and have in one women's words, imposed an unwritten curfew. Technology can eliminate this fear as well!
jha@uiucdcsp.Uiuc.ARPA (07/16/85)
While I appreciate every effort being made to solve the problem of rape and other street crimes, I can't accept this one. And here is why: Just when you thought 1984 was over and it was safe to go out again, Big Brother strikes University Park No :-), this is serious. Video cameras on street corners is just the beginning. A lot, if not most, of rapes occur in homes, often victim's own. That could lead to video cameras being installed in homes, and I shudder to think of what could happen next. How much personal freedom and privacy can we give away in exchange for (hopefully) better protection? If air travel can be used as an analogy, I have to conclude that no matter how much we give away, we never get enough protection. I don't mean to sound negative, nor do I mean to discourage those who are looking for viable solutions to the problem of rape, but I have to say that this solution is too expensive (and I'm not talking dollars and cents here). I wish I could offer some constructive ideas, but I have none at the moment. I don't know what goes into the making of a rapist, so I can't suggest any social changes to prevent that. In the short-term there is the need to thwart the attempts of already- made rapists. A non-fatal weapon (something that paralyzes the victim temporarily, but does not kill or disable permanently) may be a woman's best defense. Other suggestions are welcome. Manoj K. Jha
scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) (07/16/85)
Big Brother, Just wanted to let you know you forgot to sign your last article. :-( Scott
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/16/85)
> > A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at . . > traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against > the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras > output would be transmitted to the police station. Such a system . > The area covered by each camera (halfway down each of four city blocks) > would contain at least 50 households. Thus the one time installation . > the charge for something like cable tv. In many urban areas, the density > would be much higher than fifty households on four half blocks so the . > Motion detectors that would only show those streets with a person or car on > it could be used, we could increase the number of cameras per monitoring . > These cameras would totally eliminate street crime since it would > be impossible to commit same without being caught. It would be like > having a cop at every corner at a fraction of the expense. Any women . > that could summon the police instantaneously. In addition the cameras > could be connected to videotape systems to provide evidence in the > event of a prosecution. They could also be used to keep track of > any person leaving the scene of a crime so the police could apprehend > them easily. > BIG BROTHER CAN STILL FIND A WAY TO WATCH US. 1984 ISNT OVER YET! -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (The Rev. Peak) (07/16/85)
Have you seen a working telephone in bad neighbourhoods ?
What makes you think the video cameras would fare any better,
I guess a side effect would be that there would be lots of
cheap used video cameras available ;-).
Dave Peak
@ ihnp4!hotel!dxp
"All the net's a stage and all the men and women merely ham actors !"
- Rev Peak (apologies to Bill S.)credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (07/18/85)
> A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at > > Motion detectors that would only show those streets with a person or car on > it could be used, we could increase the number of cameras per monitoring Gee, what a great idea. I wonder what would happen if anyone should ever try to commit a rape (assault, theft, murder) indoors? or on a country road? Ask Winston Smith.
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/19/85)
> A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. Orwell was only off by one year, no? Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/19/85)
In article <25100002@smu>, leff@smu writes: > A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at > least half way down the street in four directions. They can be mounted on > separate towers or suspended on wire rope suspended between buildings or > traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against > the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras > output would be transmitted to the police station. ...where the cops would be able to make bets on the outcome. The need for bright lights everywhere will endear itself to people, too. > In the 1980s, crime is the most feared thing on > peoples minds. The fear of rape has caused women to change their lifestyle, > the jobs they take and where they live and have in one women's words, > imposed an unwritten curfew. Technology can eliminate this fear as well! Don't get me wrong -- I love Big Brother, too! But you haven't thought this out. Many rapes don't happen out in brightly-lighted streets, anyway, so you're going to have to put cameras in hallways, yards, etc. if you want to have any effect. In fact, why not put them in bedrooms -- everybody *KNOWS* what people are doing in there! You can also watch for other anti-social actions, and listen for un-American opinions. Hey! This would make a great book! "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/19/85)
In article <25100002@smu> leff@smu writes: > >A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well >as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street >corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at >least half way down the street in four directions. They can be mounted on >separate towers or suspended on wire rope suspended between buildings or >traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against >the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras >output would be transmitted to the police station. ... You're just kidding or being sarcastic about this, right? You just forgot the "(-:", right? (If not, I'll leave the flames re: 1984 to others. Their general theme should be obvious anyway). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/19/85)
> > A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at > least half way down the street in four directions. They can be mounted on > separate towers or suspended on wire rope suspended between buildings or > traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against > the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras > output would be transmitted to the police station. Such a system > has been installed on a trial basis on a few corners in University Park at > a cost of $6,000 per camera. Is this person serious? I live in a high crime area and would still rather live with street crime than with the state watching my every move. How long after this until there are cameras IN the houses? -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/20/85)
>A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well >as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street >corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at >least half way down the street in four directions. They can be mounted on >separate towers or suspended on wire rope suspended between buildings or >traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against >the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras >output would be transmitted to the police station. Your suggestion is only a year later than once predicted. Got news for you, friend: when they install this system, one of the "vandals" is likely to be *me*, and if I can't break 'em with rocks, I'll blind 'em with paint. Gawdelpus. - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (07/20/85)
> > There is no more reason for a women walking down the street to fear rape > than a parent has to fear that their child will contract polio. > > A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. Each corner's camera would be able to rotate and thus observe at > least half way down the street in four directions. They can be mounted on > separate towers or suspended on wire rope suspended between buildings or > traffic lights. The cameras would be enclosed in plexiglas to protect against > the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras > output would be transmitted to the police station. > > These cameras would totally eliminate street crime since it would > be impossible to commit same without being caught. It would be like > having a cop at every corner at a fraction of the expense. Any women > walking alone would feel like they were being escorted with an escort > that could summon the police instantaneously. In addition the cameras > could be connected to videotape systems to provide evidence in the > event of a prosecution. They could also be used to keep track of > any person leaving the scene of a crime so the police could apprehend > them easily. > > Technology has eliminated such dangers as tuberculosis and polio to the > point where they are no longer even talked about by the general populus. > People were once fearful of catching these dread diseases. Now they are no > longer on people's minds. In the 1980s, crime is the most feared thing on > peoples minds. The fear of rape has caused women to change their lifestyle, > the jobs they take and where they live and have in one women's words, > imposed an unwritten curfew. Technology can eliminate this fear as well! Uh-huh. And what about the rapist/murderers that travel the highways? What about our subway and freeway systems, what about a can of paint on they ol' "big brother" eye? Technology is fun, but there are folks out there with problems... To quote from "Airwolf:" "...the machines keep getting smarter and smarter...people stay the same..." -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo / =|-- = \ = [][][] "...I don't know what this thing does, but it's pointing in your direction."
neal@fear.UUCP (Neal Bedard) (07/20/85)
In article <25100002@smu>, leff@smu writes: > the stones of vandals. Using the cables for cable television, the cameras > output would be transmitted to the police station. Such a system > has been installed on a trial basis on a few corners in University Park at > a cost of $6,000 per camera. > A doubleplusgood goodthinkful solution from our Comrade to nail those thoughtcriminals - so when do they rename the police station to the Ministry of Love.... Room 101, please. -Neal -- I ride tandem with the random/ Things don't run the way I planned them UUCP: {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex,decwrl!amdcad!cae780}!weitek!neal
chabot@miles.DEC (Sxyzyskzyik) (07/22/85)
Don't be ridiculous! Rape is not restricted to being a street crime. This _1984_ scenario wouldn't be complete without video cameras in every room. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (07/24/85)
> Much talk about having a camera on every street corner.
I want to see rape stop as much as anyone, but something tells me
that if we had a camera on every street corner a lot more things
would become crimes in the eyes of the state.
It seems that people forget that freedom is an expensive state of
living. They also seem to forget that rape is still a problem in
totalitarian states.
Maybe this comment belongs in net.flame, but this is the stupidest
idea I've ever seen on the net.
--
The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily
represent the views of any other individuals or organizations.
Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi
SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334gmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (07/25/85)
In article <25100002@smu> leff@smu writes: > There is no more reason for a women walking down the street to fear rape > than a parent has to fear that their child will contract polio. > > A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well > as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street > corner. I can never tell when you guys are kidding. This is kidding, isn't it? Tell me this is kidding. And, here, I thought we got through 1984 without going through "1984". Gregg Mackenzie denelcor!gmack
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/25/85)
> Don't be ridiculous! Rape is not restricted to being a street crime. This > _1984_ scenario wouldn't be complete without video cameras in every room. > > L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa Haven't you heard of 2-way cable TV.?! I used to work for OAK Industries. It is a think of the near future if not present. George Orwell move over I'm coming in. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================
shah@cornell.UUCP (Amitabh Shah) (07/26/85)
In article <1308@uwmacc.UUCP> demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) writes: >> >> There is no more reason for a women walking down the street to fear rape >> than a parent has to fear that their child will contract polio. >> >> A cost effective solution to the problem of sexual attacks on women (as well >> as all forms of street crime) is putting a video camera on every street >> corner..... > >Uh-huh. > >And what about the rapist/murderers that travel the highways? What >about our subway and freeway systems, what about a can of paint >on they ol' "big brother" eye? > >-- > --- Rob DeMillo > Madison Academic Computer Center > ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo And what about the rapes that are commited within the four walls of the home, by the husband or by a 'friend'? Do you want to keep cameras in every home too? I shudder even to think of the possibility. amitabh shah'
leff@smu (07/29/85)
This is a rebuttal to the various responses to my article on a solution for the Rape Problem. In my article I proposed video cameras on every street corner connected to various monitoring locations. Issue 1: Am I creating a "1984" type environment. I am not proposing video cameras in the home. First of all, they would not be cost effective since at least one would be needed for each household while cameras monitoring the streets would serve many house holds. Second of all, homes can be protected against outside attackers (somebody going through the door or window) by the use of steel grids on windows and metal doors with dead bolts, a much cheaper technology. The video cameras would not go anywhere where a police officer could not go or look without a search warrant. They are already being used on the streets without any legal problems. Video cameras in the home would violate the fourth ammendment (unless they were put there with the consent of one of the occupants). Second of all, the video camera system does not have to be run by the government. It is conceivable that a real estate syndicate might purchase a large amount of real estate in a given neighborhood where prices are greatly depressed due to a high crime rate. They might install and monitor the cameras to make a profit from selling the real estate or renting it out at a higher value than expected. It is possible that some neighborhoods might be left free of the cameras for the benefit of those who find the thought of a camera looking at them more disturbing than the thought of being a crime victim. Other neighborhoods and work areas would be fitted with the video cameras for the benefit of those who feel the opposite. Issue 2: People feel the cameras would be subject to vandalism and theft The original proposal had the video cameras suspended high up (between streetlights for example). Thus they would be no more vulnerable to vandalism than street or traffic lights are today. The bulletproof plexiglass would decrease the vulnerability still further. Furthermore, the system would readily detect vandalism attempts. If a person was attempting to knock down a camera (by climbing up a ladder with a paint can, or by shooting at it), the person monitoring the camera would see some signs of the activity (hearing the gun shot, man on a ladder, or observing a person with a gun) before the camera was down. Once the camera was rendered inoperative, that would certainly be obvious as a blank screen and police would be summoned to the intersection to apprehend any suspects and protect the area until a new one could be installed. Also, the cameras on the adjacent four corners would be used to observe the people fleeing from the scene of the vandalism. (If any type of crime is committed, the system can be used to track where the perpetrators are going so that the police can be given instructions as to where to go to apprehend them.) Issue 3: Many (most) rapes are committed by acquaintances in the home. Although rapes by acquaintances is a major component of the total number of rapes, women fear rapes by strangers much more. Thus eliminating rapes by strangers would remove the "unwritten curfew" that women feel they are under. Furthermore it would be a substantial dent in the total number of rapes. I understand that for some populations of women (e. g. women living in apartments in high crime areas), rape by strangers is much greater than 50 percent of all rapes. Issue 4: Rapes on freways, etc. One of the problems on many freeways is that there is no emergency telephones. Thus a women whose car breaks down has three choices: 1) wait for hours for a police car to come by 2) take a chance on a stranger coming by 3) attempting to walk to a town/phone Also, Central Expressway on Dallas already has cameras installed. They are for the purpose of letting the police know when a car breaks down in the middle of the highway so wreckers/etc. can be gotten there as quickly as possible. We clearly need cameras on freeways (as well as emergency telephones). Maybe they can be used to help track drunk drivers as well to eliminate rapes on stranded motorists. I know a women whose parents would not let her drive at night. They were afraid that her car might break down and she would either be attacked on the road or when she tried to walk to get to a phone. ARRGH! Flame ON! We use much technology that had unfortunate uses in Nazi Germany, e. g. gas ovens, tattoos and imprisonment facilities. It is not the fact that the technology has been used in a poor way in the past, each possible use must be evaluated for its costs/benefits. Why are you people so afraid of a technology, just because it was misused in a FICTIONAL SOCIETY. If video-camera technology is so dangerous, why haven't the Soviet Union and South Africa employed it for repression???!!!! In "1984" the cameras in people's homes were an outgrowth of a two way video network similar in many ways to QUBE, not to cameras installed for a crime control purpose in public areas. It seems that certain Luddites don't believe that the government should see to it that anyone can walk anywhere, dressed any way they feel like (no matter how provocative or how rich-looking) without fear. They would not like to remove the major fear of most urban dwellers, crime! They would prefer crime continue to destroy many neighborhoods resulting in the deterioration of some very fine buildings. They prefer that women be forced to buy an expensive transportation source (the private car) instead of using mass transit or walking because of the fear of crime. They prefer to allow an ever continuing urban sprawl as people flee from the city to the suburbs to avoid crime only to find criminals and slums move to the former suburbs instead of solving the problem!
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/30/85)
-- > This is a rebuttal to the various responses to my article on > a solution for the Rape Problem. In my article I proposed video > cameras on every street corner connected to various monitoring > locations... > > It seems that certain Luddites don't believe that the government > should see to it that anyone can walk anywhere, dressed any way > they feel like (no matter how provocative or how rich-looking) > without fear... Not exactly. Those alleged Luddites just don't think the gov't. can be trusted to do so. You can't solve social and political problems simply by throwing technology at them--something the original Luddites, misguided as they were, seem to have figured out. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 30 Jul 85 [12 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/01/85)
> > Second of all, the video camera system does not have to be run by > the government. It is conceivable that a real estate syndicate might > purchase a large amount of real estate in a given neighborhood where > prices are greatly depressed due to a high crime rate. They might > install and monitor the cameras to make a profit from selling the > real estate or renting it out at a higher value than expected. > > It is possible that some neighborhoods might be left free of the > cameras for the benefit of those who find the thought of a camera > looking at them more disturbing than the thought of being a crime > victim. Other neighborhoods and work areas would be fitted with the > video cameras for the benefit of those who feel the opposite. In my parents' apartment building they use somewhat similar technology. The way this has been implemented is that anybody with a TV can tune in to a particular channel at any time and see who is going in and out of the building. The idea which is good, is to give people the opportunity to check who they are letting in. I think that it is a good idea, but basically flawed and implemented in a dangerous fashion. It is flawed because a lot of people don't bother checking who they let in the building (some people don't even use their intercom, which is right next to the button one has to press to let someone in. Why would they use a TV which is in the next room, and has to be either turned on or switched channels?). More importantly I think it is an extremely dangerous idea because it provides any nut who lives in the building with the technology s/he would need to watch people and learn their habits (e.g find out which women often come late and alone). People like that would probably LOVE to be able to pick their victims in advance from the confort of their sofa. There are already enough deranged people who go through the trouble of picking out their victims by watching them in advance even though they don't have sophisticated equipment to help them do it, why provide them with more? I know that this is not what you were thinking of, but just remember, any useful tool like that one can be turned into a weapon, so before choosing some weapon to defend ourselves it is usually a good idea to make sure that the dangers associated with the weapon are not greater than the danger one wants the the weapon to defend one against. > > Issue 3: Many (most) rapes are committed by acquaintances in the home. > > Although rapes by acquaintances is a major component of the total > number of rapes, women fear rapes by strangers much more. Thus > eliminating rapes by strangers would remove the "unwritten curfew" > that women feel they are under. Furthermore it would be a substantial > dent in the total number of rapes. I understand that for some > populations of women (e. g. women living in apartments in high crime > areas), rape by strangers is much greater than 50 percent of all rapes. > Well, I don't know about "most" women, but I certainly fear any kind of rape about the same. I do agree with you that it would be nice not to have to fear that kind of rape anymore, but I think I would feel very uncomfartable being watched all the time. > Issue 4: Rapes on freways, etc. > > One of the problems on many freeways is that there is no emergency > telephones. Thus a women whose car breaks down has three choices: > 1) wait for hours for a police car to come by > 2) take a chance on a stranger coming by > 3) attempting to walk to a town/phone Actually 2) is not as bad as it sounds. It is quite possible to get help from strangers without endangering oneself: simply by lowering one's window a tiny bit and asking the stranger to place the call. Apart from the 1984-ish reasons other people have mentioned, I don't like your idea because I don't think that it will work. It is very easy to disguise oneself to fool a camera (as films from bank robberies show). It is also quite possible to be menacing without appearing to be by saying things (would your cameras also record sounds?). There will always be places without cameras (how are you going to cover the entire world, or even all of the US?) that people could go to to commit their crimes, and it's also not because a crime is recorded on tape that the criminal will be apprehended. I personally think that cameras work well in very well- contained areas like stores, banks, to record very specific crimes, but that's about it. Sorry to be so negative. I think that you are actually sincerely trying to suggest a good answer, but I really think that the dangers of your proposed solution far outweigh the benefits. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (08/02/85)
In article <25100003@smu> leff@smu writes: > >This is a rebuttal to the various responses to my article on >a solution for the Rape Problem. In my article I proposed video >cameras on every street corner connected to various monitoring locations. > >Issue 2: People feel the cameras would be subject to vandalism and theft > >The original proposal had the video cameras suspended high up (between >streetlights for example). Thus they would be no more vulnerable >to vandalism than street or traffic lights are today. The bulletproof >plexiglass would decrease the vulnerability still further. > >Furthermore, the system would readily detect vandalism attempts. If a >person was attempting to knock down a camera (by climbing up a ladder with a >paint can, or by shooting at it), the person monitoring the camera would see >some signs of the activity (hearing the gun shot, man on a ladder, or >observing a person with a gun) before the camera was down. Once the camera >was rendered inoperative, that would certainly be obvious as a blank screen >and police would be summoned to the intersection to apprehend any suspects >and protect the area until a new one could be installed. Also, the cameras >on the adjacent four corners would be used to observe the people fleeing >from the scene of the vandalism. (If any type of crime is committed, the >system can be used to track where the perpetrators are going so that the >police can be given instructions as to where to go to apprehend them.) Since the cameras would inevitably be used for general criminal suppression (wouldn't be cost-effective just for rapes), you can bet that organized crime would take a great interest in neutralizing 90+% of the cameras. It would be very easy to develop a "paint gun" and wear a stocking over one's head. The mob could offer 1$/camera for painting over, and maybe offer to fence any removed cameras (removal being slightly riskier than painting over). The police couldn't possibly respond fast enough to stay ahead of the paid vandals, and if nearly all the cameras are out, you couldn't "track" anyone! Perhaps this is one of the reasons the Soviets, South Africans, and others don't use cameras everywhere, hmmm? stan shebs
norman@lasspvax.UUCP (Norman Ramsey) (08/03/85)
In article <25100003@smu> leff@smu writes: > >This is a rebuttal to the various responses to my article on >a solution for the Rape Problem. In my article I proposed video >cameras on every street corner connected to various monitoring locations. > Christ! YYou *were* serious. I really don't believe it!
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (08/06/85)
I've been trying to keep quiet on this issue, because I'm really alot more interested in what women have to say about it than I am in talking about how I feel about it. But this really got to me because the prospect of surveillance is so ugly and counterproductive, and also because the men involved in the debate have gone to such great lengths to defend their extreme positions in net.women. The issue of rape is upsetting for me because I know women are afraid of it, and afraid of me, at times, because of it. I think that it is upsetting for many men, hence the harshess of the proposed countermeasures. > Issue 1: Am I creating a "1984" type environment. > I am not proposing video cameras in the home. No, but that would easily follow, whether by public or private "authority." > Issue 2: People feel the cameras would be subject to vandalism and theft Damn right. Can't see them surviving long in the citeh. > Issue 3: Many (most) rapes are committed by acquaintances in the home. > ...women fear rapes by strangers much more. Is this true? I wonder! Also, this will be a rationale for cameras in the home. > Issue 4: Rapes on freways, etc. > One of the problems on many freeways is that there is no emergency telephones. I strongly agree with this one. The description of the cameras for locating and responding to crashes and stranded cars makes an awful lot of sense. > We use much technology that had unfortunate uses in Nazi Germany, e. g. > ... each possible use must be evaluated for its costs/benefits. I object to the belief that technology will solve what is essentially a political problem. When women decide that they won't tolerate rape, and are themselves willing to do whatever it takes to prevent/avenge it, rape will stop -- perhaps with the help of technology. But, much as I regret saying it, I don't think rape will stop until then. Women, please do WHATEVER you must, and allow me to get the hell out of your way. There are certain things that a person must be willing to kill or die for. There are other things that a person must survive and get over. I'm not sure which category rape falls under. I do know what my limits are when it comes to violence or threats of violence. What I really wish is that every woman knew how to defend herself from violence, and felt entitled and ready to do so. That alone would make the benefit/risk ratio for rape alot less tempting. I also wish that men would quit trying to make excuses for it on the net. There is simply no excuse. Also, if you are a man and have a flame, please think twice before posting it. Maybe we need a net.rape, like net.abortion. I think that this one is going to get alot hotter before it cools. -bob.
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (08/09/85)
> I am not proposing video cameras in the home. First of all, they > would not be cost effective since at least one would be needed > for each household while cameras monitoring the streets would serve > many house holds. > Second of all, the video camera system does not have to be run by > the government. It is conceivable that a real estate syndicate might > purchase a large amount of real estate in a given neighborhood where > prices are greatly depressed due to a high crime rate. They might > install and monitor the cameras to make a profit from selling the > real estate or renting it out at a higher value than expected. Someone mentions cameras, everyone else starts chanting "1984, 1984" like the novel actually predicted something. There are cameras used almost everywhere of corporate importance now. Look up above the cash register in any department store built in the last 10 years. Look in your local Burger King restaurant (mine, at least). Look on top of almost any building overlooking a private parking lot. Look around in the next mechanical teller booth you are in. If its cameras that bother you, you'd best move to the country. Television cameras, obviously, can be misused. There was something posted a while back about cameras in the dressing rooms, where a great many petty robberies take place in clothes stores. So what's a manager to do? Guarantee that only women (for example; pardon my sexism) will look at the monitors? Remove them and add 5% to everything in the store? What constitutes improper use, anyway? Cameras in the home. Could there be any justification? Hmmm....lets drop 1984 for a while and try, perhaps, Niven and Pournelle's Oath_of_Fealty, where an arcology (that's an enclosed, self-maintained city) has cameras inside the apartments. Read it and see why people might flock to live under those circumstances. Lyle McElhaney ...denelcor!lmc PS: Oh, and if you think that the cameras on the street corners just won't work out for any of the reasons cited, I urge you to consider what the costs of foot/car patrol labor are to do the equivalent surveilance, look around in your favorite mall, and put two and two together. They'll be there, soon.
miche@masscomp.UUCP (Harvey) (08/09/85)
In article <2569@sun.uucp> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp masscomp!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!rdh rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) writes: > > When women decide that they won't tolerate rape, and >are themselves willing to do whatever it takes to prevent/avenge it, rape >will stop -- perhaps with the help of technology. But, much as I regret >saying it, I don't think rape will stop until then. Women, please do WHATEVER >you must, and allow me to get the hell out of your way. > The above paragraph is very loaded. It says, if you read it backwards, that women want to be raped: If they didn't, they would stop it, right? This is obviously wrong, as I'm sure Robert would agree. Women do NOT have the power to stop rape; men do. Does this mean, since rape still happens, that 'men want rape to happen'? We know for a fact that there are men who do want rape to happen, and men who do not want rape to happen. There are also a hell of a lot of men who do not realize how their actions foster an environment in which rape is normal. Ok, women, too. Men rape. It is the RAPIST's problem that he rapes. There is nothing wrong with a woman who is raped, or women because women are raped. It is not reasonable to expect women to stop rape. We can fight, we can kill, we can scream, we can even discuss reasonably (occasionally ;-)), but women can't 'not rape'. Let's not give responsibility for the crime to the victim. Does this remind anyone of the scene in 'Games Mother Never Taught You' where the new women employee was told that she was responsible for the comfort of the seasoned, experienced males? Miche Baker-Harvey {decvax|ihnp4}!masscomp!miche
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/13/85)
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) writes: >> When women decide that they won't tolerate rape, and >>are themselves willing to do whatever it takes to prevent/avenge it, rape >>will stop -- perhaps with the help of technology. But, much as I regret >>saying it, I don't think rape will stop until then. Women, please do WHATEVER >>you must, and allow me to get the hell out of your way. miche@masscomp.UUCP (Miche Baker-Harvey) responds: >The above paragraph is very loaded. It says, if you read it backwards, >that women want to be raped: If they didn't, they would stop it, right? >This is obviously wrong, as I'm sure Robert would agree. This reasoning is bogus. What everybody does in response to a potential threat is to weigh the risk against the inconvenience of avoiding the risk, and make a choice. It does not follow that a person who doesn't do absolutely everything possible to avoid death *wants* to die. The same goes for rape. There are things women can do to reduce their chances of getting raped, such as being careful of where they choose to walk and when, or *openly* carrying a gun. I don't expect women to do absolutely everything possible to avoid rape; I only expect them to decide for themselves at what level they are willing to make their risk/inconvenience trade-off. Robert Hartman is wrong, I think, only in his implication that women can eliminate rape... short of rounding up and killing *all* men, there is no way to do this... risk reduction is the best you can do. > Women do NOT >have the power to stop rape; men do. Does this mean, since rape still >happens, that 'men want rape to happen'? We know for a fact that there >are men who do want rape to happen, and men who do not want rape to happen. ... >Men rape. It is the RAPIST's problem that he rapes. There is nothing >wrong with a woman who is raped, or women because women are raped. It >is not reasonable to expect women to stop rape. We can fight, we can >kill, we can scream, we can even discuss reasonably (occasionally ;-)), >but women can't 'not rape'. Let's not give responsibility for the >crime to the victim. Any statement to the effect that women can do something about rape is always automatically interpreted by somebody as "blaming the victim." Saying that women can do something about rape does in fact imply some responsibility on their part. This is not the same as saying that when a woman who has made some effort to avoid rape gets raped anyway, that it's her fault. The nature of reality is this: There are men who, given the opportunity, will commit rape. Women are able to do some things to avoid it, but avoidance tactics always involve some inconvenience. It does no good to object that it's the *men* who have the power to stop rape -- the men who have the power to stop rape are the rapists. Somehow I doubt that they want to. It does no good to object that the inconvenience to women of avoiding rape is unfair -- the inconveniences and risks are the same whether you feel it's fair or not. Reality is what it is. If you disapprove of reality, it will still be what it is. Reality doesn't need your approval. Reality doesn't care. Deal with it. -- David Canzi Ultimate tabloid headline: "Crazed by UFO radiation, pregnant man bites dog."
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/15/85)
> > Any statement to the effect that women can do something about rape is > always automatically interpreted by somebody as "blaming the victim." > Saying that women can do something about rape does in fact imply some > responsibility on their part. This is not the same as saying that > when a woman who has made some effort to avoid rape gets raped anyway, > that it's her fault. > The problem with this reasoning is that it's true that an individual woman may be able to protect herself from being raped (at least to some degree). However this does not mean that women as a class can prevent rape this way, because I am not sure that the rapists will not just try harder (or pick on the few leftover victims who for some reason do not protect themselves). Although I have never been raped, and even if I never am, I will still worry about the problem. One of the few ways that rape can really be stopped (or at least cut back) is to find what leads men to rape women, and to try to stop it at its source. It's rooted in sexism, y'know. marie desjardins park
brianc@tekla.UUCP (Brian Conley) (08/15/85)
> > I am not proposing video cameras in the home. First of all, they > > would not be cost effective since at least one would be needed > > for each household while cameras monitoring the streets would serve > > many house holds. > > Lyle McElhaney > ...denelcor!lmc > > PS: Oh, and if you think that the cameras on the street corners just won't > work out for any of the reasons cited, I urge you to consider what the > costs of foot/car patrol labor are to do the equivalent surveilance, > look around in your favorite mall, and put two and two together. They'll > be there, soon. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Yes Lyle, but just because someone is watching does not mean that they will be able to react in time (i.e. get to the scene of the crime) in time to save your skin. Unless the camera is hand held by a police officer.
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/16/85)
So, David, are you saying that men who don't rape can't do anything about rape? L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (08/20/85)
I've been through three sets of reactions to Miche's posting, and I'd like you to know about them. Then, I'm going to shut up and listen. > Robert Hartman writes: > > > > When women decide that they won't tolerate rape, and > >are themselves willing to do whatever it takes to prevent/avenge it, rape > >will stop -- perhaps with the help of technology. But, much as I regret > >saying it, I don't think rape will stop until then. > > The above paragraph is very loaded. It says, if you read it backwards, > that women want to be raped: If they didn't, they would stop it, right? > This is obviously wrong, as I'm sure Robert would agree. Women do NOT 1st Reaction: This is a cheap shot. I didn't write it backwards, and my intent is being deliberately misconstrued. I feel angry and defensive. There is a difference between wanting something, and tolerating what you don't want. 2nd Reaction: She has a point. Perhaps people will see this as an excuse not to help, or as a rationale to blame the victim. 3rd Reaction: If women don't take steps to make rape alot more painful for the rapist, who will? If all men benefit from a climate in which rape can occur, or if all men are latent rapists, men won't. I hope that this isn't the case, but I'm not sure that it isn't. Often men who don't like rape don't know about it in time, or aren't on hand to stop it. So, I STILL stand by what I said, although I'll be VERY careful about how I word it. I am aware that this places the responsibility for a woman's personal safety on HER. There is a course given in Palo Alto called "model mugging." In it, women are encouraged to feel powerful. Then, a man in a padded suit simulates progressively heavy attacks on each woman. The women are cheered on by their classmates to defend themselves, and are taught techniques for doing so. Of the 17 women who subsequently were attacked for real, 15 or so knocked the attacker out COLD. The others found less intense ways to get out of the situation. I encourage every woman to take a course like this. > [paraphrase (vi bit me): Women can't stop rape.] All 3: I won't disempower you if you won't. I won't be responsible for you if you do. > [paraphrase (vi bit me): There are a hell of a lot of men who are unaware > of how their actions] foster an environment in which rape is normal. > Ok, women, too. 1st: I'm not one of those jerks. 2nd: I am one of those jerks. 3rd: Who will tell me about my behavior if I alienate all the women on the net? > Men rape. It is the RAPIST's problem that he rapes. There is nothing > wrong with a woman who is raped, or women because women are raped. 1st: There is nothing wrong with a woman who survives rape. I didn't mean to imply that there was, and I'm not sure that I did. 2nd: There is nothing wrong with a woman who survives rape. 3rd: " > is not reasonable to expect women to stop rape. 1st: It isn't FAIR. But rape isn't fair, and there is no Superman. 2nd: If all men are latent rapists, it doesn't do you much good to hire one to protect you. If I were a woman, I'd sure as hell protect myself. 3rd: No, but you can make it alot harder on a rapist, before, during, and after. > Let's not give responsibility for the crime to the victim. All 3: OK. But lets not give responsibility for stopping it to its (potential) perpetrators. > Does this remind anyone of the scene in 'Games Mother Never Taught You' > where the new women employee was told that she was responsible for the > comfort of the seasoned, experienced males? All 3: No, and I feel trashed by this, despite catching the irony. I felt that the irony was misplaced a bit. I said up front that I was a male, and that I felt somewhat unqualified to speak to the issue. I don't THINK I believe that women are here for my comfort without the converse also being true. If you would be more comfortable with my silence, you can say so directly. I promise that I'll try to hear what you say, not what I think you have said. I wish I could say that for my brothers. -bob.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/23/85)
In article <3686@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@miles.DEC writes: >So, David, are you saying that men who don't rape can't do anything about rape? Aside from walking a woman home (if she would trust me -- a highly doubtful proposition), I can't think of anything. You have other ideas? -- David Canzi
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/06/85)
In article <532@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >> Any statement to the effect that women can do something about rape is >> always automatically interpreted by somebody as "blaming the victim." >> Saying that women can do something about rape does in fact imply some >> responsibility on their part. This is not the same as saying that >> when a woman who has made some effort to avoid rape gets raped anyway, >> that it's her fault. > >The problem with this reasoning is that it's true that an individual >woman may be able to protect herself from being raped (at least to >some degree). However this does not mean that women as a class can >prevent rape this way, because I am not sure that the rapists will >not just try harder (or pick on the few leftover victims who for >some reason do not protect themselves). Women as a class can only protect themselves as a class by acting as a class. In the meantime, until this marvelous global consensus is reached, women can only protect themselves individually. Those who do are less likely to be victims. For your purposes, my conclusions are inadequate. This doesn't make them false. If the truth is inadequate, it is still the truth. Some women shout "blaming the victim!" in response to any suggestion that they can or should do anything to avoid rape. Some women say things like "It's not our fault, it's the rapist's fault." They seem to feel that, therefore, they are under no obligation to do anything to avoid rape. It's all up to the rapists. If these women act on this belief, they are more likely to become victims. Their moral superiority won't protect them. > Although I have never been >raped, and even if I never am, I will still worry about the problem. >One of the few ways that rape can really be stopped (or at least >cut back) is to find what leads men to rape women, and to try to >stop it at its source. It's rooted in sexism, y'know. If you're talking about ending sexism, be aware that this is definitely not a weekend project. While working towards this goal, shorter-term rape avoidance techniques will be necessary. -- David Canzi This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting system. It was only a test. Repeat: only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/21/85)
In article <1652@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > In article <532@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: > >> Any statement to the effect that women can do something about rape is > >> always automatically interpreted by somebody as "blaming the victim." > >> Saying that women can do something about rape does in fact imply some > >> responsibility on their part. This is not the same as saying that > >> when a woman who has made some effort to avoid rape gets raped anyway, > >> that it's her fault. > > > Women as a class can only protect themselves as a class by acting as a > class. In the meantime, until this marvelous global consensus is > reached, women can only protect themselves individually. Those who do > are less likely to be victims. For your purposes, my conclusions are > inadequate. This doesn't make them false. If the truth is inadequate, > it is still the truth. > > If you're talking about ending sexism, be aware that this is definitely > not a weekend project. While working towards this goal, shorter-term > rape avoidance techniques will be necessary. > It as reported last week that the state of California fined a nursing home because an 82 year old woman was raped there. She died several hours later, and homicide charges were being considered as part of the investigation. Now, what could this woman have done to prevent rape? Stayed home? (That's where she was). Stayed with others? (nursing homes are supposed to have caretakers). Worn less provocative clothing? (than the haute couture of San Jose nursing homes). Linda Seltzer
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/24/85)
In article <4251@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: >In article <1652@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >> >> Any statement to the effect that women can do something about rape is >> >> always automatically interpreted by somebody as "blaming the victim." >> >> Saying that women can do something about rape does in fact imply some >> >> responsibility on their part. This is not the same as saying that >> >> when a woman who has made some effort to avoid rape gets raped anyway, >> >> that it's her fault. >> > >> Women as a class can only protect themselves as a class by acting as a >> class. In the meantime, until this marvelous global consensus is >> reached, women can only protect themselves individually. Those who do >> are less likely to be victims. >> >It was reported last week that the state of California fined a nursing home >because an 82 year old woman was raped there. She died several hours >later, and homicide charges were being considered as part of the >investigation. > >Now, what could this woman have done to prevent rape? Nothing, I guess. I wonder what you think it proves, though. Maybe you think that, since you can get raped no matter what you do, you might as well do whatever you please? "Non-smokers get lung cancer too, so I might as well smoke." Do you accept that line of argument? Or maybe you're taking issue with my statement that women can do something to avoid rape, and you feel that this woman's case proves me wrong, because she was helpless. Well, most women are not that helpless. If I rephrased the statements to say "most women can do something about rape", would you still object? -- David Canzi Hmmm, folks must not be heavily into freedom these days. -- Garfield
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/02/85)
In article <549@mtfmp.UUCP> lje@mtfmp.UUCP (L.ELSER) writes: >What does David mean by "things we (women) can do >to avoid rape"?? Does he mean stay home and lock the >doors? I find that answer totally unacceptable. Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being raped. Several people have misinterpreted my words as specifically recommending this technique, even though I have tried to make it clear that what you do, if anything, to try to avoid rape is entirely your choice. >Several years ago the campus police at my school >came up with a novel way of handling the problem >of rape on campus. When they saw a woman or a small >group of women walking after dark, they would hand >them cards that said > "If I were a rapist, you'ld be in trouble." >Women have every right to go to the library, the >dining hall, other dorms, stores, bars, etc. >without being accosted. A moral judgement. You may feel that you have the right to do this or that without getting accosted, but that doesn't mean you won't get accosted. A major point of my first posting was that moral judgements have nothing to do with reality. The word "ought" would not exist in the English language if what happens and what ought to happen were always the same thing. > Our presence on the streets >at night (or during the day) does not provoke rape. Where have I said that it does? >We should not be expected to lock ourselves away or >be constantly escorted. If you were unable to defend yourself, these might be the only methods available to reduce your risk. It's unfair. But "unfair" is a moral judgement, and (as above) moral judgements have nothing to do with reality. My first posting on this subject was in response to a woman who took umbrage at somebody's innocent suggestion that women could do something about rape. She described this suggestion as "blaming the victim". She basically pronounced a negative moral judgement on the idea. But moral judgements have... etc. Note that disapproving of an idea, and then rejecting it on moral grounds, completely bypasses consideration of the idea's truth value. The whole point, the "nature of reality", is that reality will be and will do what it bloody well pleases, whether you approve of it or not. Determine whether something is true or false first, *then* make your moral judgements. People who attempt to do these things in the reverse order will end up with mistaken beliefs. And if you base your actions on mistaken beliefs, your actions will be mistakes. All followups to my first posting on this topic, except for one, have been based on misinterpretations of what I was saying. I would appreciate it if any future followups were based on what I actually said. -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) (10/05/85)
In article <1714@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >In article <549@mtfmp.UUCP> lje@mtfmp.UUCP (L.ELSER) writes: >>Women have every right to go to the library, the >>dining hall, other dorms, stores, bars, etc. >>without being accosted. > >A moral judgement. You may feel that you have the right to do this or >that without getting accosted, but that doesn't mean you won't get >accosted. A major point of my first posting was that moral judgements >have nothing to do with reality. The word "ought" would not exist in >the English language if what happens and what ought to happen were >always the same thing. : : >If you were unable to defend yourself, these might be the only methods >available to reduce your risk. It's unfair. But "unfair" is a moral >judgement, and (as above) moral judgements have nothing to do with >reality. > >moral judgements have... etc. Note that disapproving of an idea, and >then rejecting it on moral grounds, completely bypasses consideration >of the idea's truth value. > >The whole point, the "nature of reality", is that reality will be and >will do what it bloody well pleases, whether you approve of it or not. This, I believe, is her underlying objection to your posting. (If it wans't, it is my objection.) "Reality", in this case is social reality. Social reality is what we choose to make it, not some objective, unchangeable reality. If we continue to tolerate rape as a given in our society, it will continue to perpetuate itself. Only by demanding that rape, and murder and all violent acts, be treated as the crimes they are, can we hope for a better world. Standing idly by an spouting platitudes about how the word "ought" should not be in the dictionary contributes nothing to improving our lives. > >All followups to my first posting on this topic, except for one, have >been based on misinterpretations of what I was saying. I would >appreciate it if any future followups were based on what I actually >said. >-- >David Canzi You will note that I have edited the exchange of postings simply to cut down on the net traffic. I did not read your original posting and I am but, since I am replying to the one referenced, I don't see that it matters. -- Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter (I am responsible for myself and my dog and no-one else)
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) (10/07/85)
Re: Rape (The nature of reality)__________________________________ >> What does David mean by "things we (women) can do to avoid >> rape"?? Does he mean stay home and lock the doors? > Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being > raped. One would think that an article subtitled "The nature of reality" would have a better grip on it. Oh well . . . David, I suggest you do some research and find out exactly where most women are raped. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: ::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/10/85)
Note: This is STella Calvert, aka mrswjr, a guest on this account. In article <549@mtfmp.UUCP> lje@mtfmp.UUCP (L.ELSER) writes: >Several years ago the campus police at my school >came up with a novel way of handling the problem >of rape on campus. When they saw a woman or a small >group of women walking after dark, they would hand >them cards that said > "If I were a rapist, you'ld be in trouble." I was once handed such a card, by a cop who materialized out of the shadows. I stopped my blow just short of his Adam's apple, smiled, and said, "If you were a rapist, you'd be in pain." Then I suggested that he give women a little more reaction time, rather than trying to throw a scare into our defenseless hearts, and explained to him why I felt this was another example of "blaming the victim". >It is unfortunate that we ARE expected to curtail our >activities to "avoid" rape. I take Karate in part to >learn how I can protect myself. I will not hide like >a child from the world to "avoid" rape, but I WILL >be damn sure I can run, scream, and, if necessary, kill >to prevent rape. This may sound unnecessarily bitchy >or paranoid, but I live in a city, I enjoy my freedom, >and I will defend myself with no more force than >I need to get away. If that includes seriously injuring >someone who has attacked me (and, I must presume, would >not hesitate to do me harm!!) so be it. I agree. But I'd inflict a little more than the bare minimum of damage needed to ensure my escape. And if I had gotten a clear shot at the knife-wielding would-be rapist before he dove off the balcony, I'd have taken it. (Note: I live in Massachusetts, and currently own no firearms. But I will use whatever comes to hand. And hope to see a change in the law, if people ever get tired of defining themselves as victims.) The detective who took my complaint reminded me that if I ever bagged one, I should drag him so that at least one foot was inside the apartment, since that was the current minimum for self-defense in that state ("Don't quote me, lady.") Before someone posts a note asking why I'd go the extra mile beyond making my escape, it's like this. The person I was ready to kill had entered my apartment with a six-inch knife, saying "Shut up and you won't get hurt." A few days before, he had "collected" a woman I know (her description matched mine perfectly). She felt that she would rather be buggered and forced to blow him afterwards than risk her life trying to kill him. To make rape unrewarding in a situation where the maximum payoff is two or more orgasms, the other side of the equation has to be possible death. Maybe I'm wrong, since he didn't cut her too bad, just enough to get her attention, but I'd happily bury a rapist under a simple granite stone saying: EVOLUTION IN ACTION, ASSHOLE. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/12/85)
In article <550@oakhill.UUCP> hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) writes: >In article <1714@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >> You may feel that you have the right to do this or >>that without getting accosted, but that doesn't mean you won't get >>accosted. A major point of my first posting was that moral judgements >>have nothing to do with reality. ... > >>The whole point, the "nature of reality", is that reality will be and >>will do what it bloody well pleases, whether you approve of it or not. > > This, I believe, is her underlying objection to your posting. >(If it wans't, it is my objection.) "Reality", in this case is social >reality. Social reality is what we choose to make it, not some >objective, unchangeable reality. To say that social reality is what "we" choose to make it is misleading. Social reality is the result of all our individual decisions on how to behave. Since each of us has only a limited ability to influence other people, a great deal of social reality is beyond any one person's control. The only thing people can do about it is learn how to deal with the things they can't control. Such as by self-defense and/or avoidance. In my first posting on this subject, I was saying that there are some things that women can't change, such as the existence of potential rapists, and there are some things they can control, such as how easy a target they are for potential rapists. People seem to find the latter more offensive than the former. > If we continue to tolerate rape as a >given in our society, it will continue to perpetuate itself. Only by >demanding that rape, and murder and all violent acts, be treated as the >crimes they are, can we hope for a better world. They *are* treated as crimes. They still happen. With better law enforcement and harsher penalties, they may happen less often. But they will still happen. The words "tolerate rape as a given" are emotionally loaded. The words "acknowledge that rape can't entirely be eliminated" are less loaded and more accurate. -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/12/85)
In article <725@decwrl.UUCP> dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) writes: > >>> What does David mean by "things we (women) can do to avoid >>> rape"?? Does he mean stay home and lock the doors? >> Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being >> raped. > > One would think that an article subtitled "The nature of >reality" would have a better grip on it. Oh well . . . David, I >suggest you do some research and find out exactly where most >women are raped. I've heard that most rapes occur in the home. I've also heard that in most such cases the woman let the man in. That involves unlocking the door. My purpose in making that remark was to make a point that women do have some control over their risk of rape, not to advocate this particular drastic course of action. A lot of people seem to believe, for reasons that have little to do with the truth of the matter, that women are totally helpless. -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (10/14/85)
In article <> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >One of the few ways that rape can really be stopped (or at least >cut back) is to find what leads men to rape women, and to try to >stop it at its source. It's rooted in sexism, y'know. > I thought it had something to do with testosterone poisoning... >marie desjardins park -- ---------- "Break but never bend" ...akgua!galbp!bing
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/16/85)
> In article <> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: > > >One of the few ways that rape can really be stopped (or at least > >cut back) is to find what leads men to rape women, and to try to > >stop it at its source. It's rooted in sexism, y'know. > > > I thought it had something to do with testosterone poisoning... > > >marie desjardins park > Sounds like raging hormones are raging again.
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (10/18/85)
> > dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) > >> David Canzi > David Canzi > >>> What does David mean by "things we (women) can do to avoid > >>> rape"?? Does he mean stay home and lock the doors? > >> Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being > >> raped. > > One would think that an article subtitled "The nature of > >reality" would have a better grip on it. Oh well . . . David, I > >suggest you do some research and find out exactly where most > >women are raped. > I've heard that most rapes occur in the home. I've also heard that in > most such cases the woman let the man in. That involves unlocking the > door. Yes, it is true that most rapes occur in the home. It is also true that in over 70% of rapes reported to the police, the attacker was previously known to the woman (landlord, friend, boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest). Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are willing to live that way, and few women are willing to bar their doors to all their male acquaintances because of these statistics. David, it's just *not* as simple as you are putting it, and you need to be aware of this. I refuse to flame anything this obvious... Ellen Eades -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (Amoral Scumbag) (10/21/85)
>> >>> What does David mean by "things we (women) can do to avoid >> >>> rape"?? Does he mean stay home and lock the doors? > >> >> Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being >> >> raped. Let me add back some context that Mr. Dyer removed: Several people have misinterpreted my words as specifically recommending this technique, even though I have tried to make it clear that what you do, if anything, to try to avoid rape is entirely your choice. >> I've heard that most rapes occur in the home. I've also heard that in >> most such cases the woman let the man in. That involves unlocking the >> door. > >Yes, it is true that most rapes occur in the home. It is also >true that in over 70% of rapes reported to the police, the >attacker was previously known to the woman (landlord, friend, >boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest). >Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at >all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are >willing to live that way, and few women are willing to bar their >doors to all their male acquaintances because of these >statistics. David, it's just *not* as simple as you are putting >it, and you need to be aware of this. Some of what I've written has been deliberately offensive. I guess I'm reaping the rewards for that. Allow me to point out that a woman *can* avoid rape by having herself sealed into a concrete box with holes for air and a slot for someone to pass food through. As before, I'm not actually advocating this course of action. As before, I fully expect that some bozo will quote that out of context, and somebody else reading the out-of-context quote will feel compelled to point out to me that very few women want to live in a concrete box... which doesn't change the truth of that statement. Repeatedly, I've tried simply to say that women can reduce their risk of rape, and that how much trouble they go to in order to do so is their choice. I've also been trying to make a more general point: that statement is a statement about fact. It can *only* be proven wrong by providing observational evidence. Moral judgments are logically irrelevant. In particular, PASSING A NEGATIVE MORAL JUDGEMENT ON THE PERSON WHO HOLDS A BELIEF DOESN'T PROVE THE BELIEF TO BE FALSE. Calling that statement "blaming the victim" (as some do) amounts to passing a moral judgement on the person who said it. It's a form of what I call the "amoral scumbag" argument: "Only an amoral scumbag would believe that." Very well: I am an amoral scumbag. Now that the matter of my moral stature (or lack thereof) has been settled, why not consider whether the statement is true or not? -- David Canzi There are too many thick books about thin subjects.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/21/85)
> > Yes, it is true that most rapes occur in the home. It is also > true that in over 70% of rapes reported to the police, the > attacker was previously known to the woman (landlord, friend, > boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest). > Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at > all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are > willing to live that way, and few women are willing to bar their > doors to all their male acquaintances because of these > statistics. David, it's just *not* as simple as you are putting > it, and you need to be aware of this. > > Ellen Eades > -- Ellen, Not trusting ANY man not to rape you rings of paranoia, or you are just flattering yourself by thinking you are such an irresistable target that a good man could turn bad by just looking at you. Your remarks are an abomination to decent men every where. I hope you can contain outrageous remarks like this to your own mind and not subject two continents to such thinking. ray
mce@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Mark McEntee%CGL) (10/22/85)
>> Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at >> all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me,... >> >> Ellen Eades >Ellen, >Not trusting ANY man not to rape you rings of paranoia, or you are just >flattering yourself by thinking you are such an irresistable target that >a good man could turn bad by just looking at you. Your remarks are an >abomination to decent men every where. I hope you can contain outrageous >remarks like this to your own mind and not subject two continents to such >thinking. > >ray What you're saying ("...flattering yourself...") smacks of "women like to get raped" or "they want it". I wasn't abominated, just incredulous that things could be so bad for someone ... I certainly have no way of knowing, not being female. Speaking of outrageous remarks, what about your spewage? I'm not sure what to say about your attitude ... appalling, sickening, childish? "Mommy, Mommy, the girls are being mean to me again...". Get off your "male vs. female" posturing ... "us vs. them" attitudes are always bad, mostly so in sexual relations. Mark McEntee
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/24/85)
> > . > > . > > . > > boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest). > > Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at > > all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are > > . > > David, it's just *not* as simple as you are putting > > it, and you need to be aware of this. > > > > Ellen Eades > > -- > Ellen, > Not trusting ANY man not to rape you rings of paranoia, or you are just > flattering yourself by thinking you are such an irresistable target that > a good man could turn bad by just looking at you. Your remarks are an ^^^^ ^^^ > abomination to decent men every where. I hope you can contain outrageous > remarks like this to your own mind and not subject two continents to such > thinking. I also don't like to be lumped with rapists and potential rapists but HOW DO YOU TELL who are the "good" men that you can trust? Are they the "...boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest"? It is sad that Ellen feels that way, it is also sad that the many are damned with the few. But, what is the alternative to suspicion? -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (10/24/85)
> > Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at > > all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are > > willing to live that way, and few women are willing to bar their > > doors to all their male acquaintances because of these > > statistics. > > > > Ellen Eades > > -- > Ellen, > Not trusting ANY man not to rape you rings of paranoia, or you are just > flattering yourself by thinking you are such an irresistable target that > a good man could turn bad by just looking at you. Your remarks are an > abomination to decent men every where. > > ray Ray, apparently you don't have too much insight into the minds of decent men everywhere. You think we're supposed to be angry at Ellen because she won't trust us? While I am sorry that Ellen has no faith in her own ability to distinguish decent men from rapists, any outrage I feel because of this situation is directed toward the scum who have given her reason to be so distrustful. 'Decent men' blame the criminals, not the victim. And one other thing, Ray- that crack about Ellen flattering herself is not only outrageously insulting, but also shows your own ignorance. As anyone seriously interested in ending rape has found out long ago, rapists tend to choose their victims based, not on their attractiveness, but on their vulnerability. The idea that 'good men turn bad' just by looking at a very attractive woman was invented by an immoral lawyer (is that redundant?) defending a rapist, and is believed only by sexists who wonder if they may someday need such a defense. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Now, I don't believe in doing anything half-way, or in watered-down versions of ANYTHING." - Ted Holden, noted Veliskovskian.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/25/85)
> > > > Yes, it is true that most rapes occur in the home. It is also > > true that in over 70% of rapes reported to the police, the > > attacker was previously known to the woman (landlord, friend, > > boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest). > > Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at > > all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are > > willing to live that way, and few women are willing to bar their > > doors to all their male acquaintances because of these > > statistics. David, it's just *not* as simple as you are putting > > it, and you need to be aware of this. > > > > Ellen Eades > > -- > Ellen, > Not trusting ANY man not to rape you rings of paranoia, or you are just > flattering yourself by thinking you are such an irresistable target that > a good man could turn bad by just looking at you. Your remarks are an > abomination to decent men every where. I hope you can contain outrageous > remarks like this to your own mind and not subject two continents to such > thinking. > > ray Ray, I would like to know what Ellen did to you to provoke a response like this. All she said was that she doesn't trust any men not to rape her. You seem to take this as an insult, suggesting that she is paranoid or narcissistic (I will not comment here on the fact that most rapists don't rape because of sexual excitement, a fact which Ellen knows and which Ray should know). All one can legitimately conclude about Ellen's attitude toward men is that she is extremely cautious. She never said that she believes that all men want to rape her (an attitude which would be paranoid), she said that she doesn't trust any man well enough not to. If Ellen could read people's minds, I'm sure her attitude would be different. Ray, please think about what a person really means before you respond with an attack. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (10/28/85)
Subject: Re: Re: Rape (The nature of reality) > HOW DO YOU TELL who are the "good" men that you can trust? Are they > the "...boyfriend, husband, brother, uncle, father, teacher, priest"? > It is sad that Ellen feels that way, it is also sad that the many are > damned with the few. But, what is the alternative to suspicion? > -- > Charlie Sorsby The solution is NOT to mistrust everyone because that would lead to a highly paranoid society. You probaby know that you can not base your trust on words or actions which are typically expected of "good" men because the not-so-good men could say or do the same things in order to gain your trust (and take advantage of it later on). The best measure you usually have is to simply listen to the overall impression of them that you form over time. There is always something behind words and actions of people. If you listen hard enough, it will come through. But before you can hear, you have to quite down the noise inside you. Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The biggest secret of all is that there are no secrets at all."
chabot@miles.DEC (10/29/85)
Farzin Mokhtarian's solution about not being paranoid and listening carefully will, of course, only work if one has some examples of "good" men in one's catalog of experience (or "good" women, whatever your preference). Or if one has some artificial examples garnered from popular mythology, fiction, or otehr sources.
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/30/85)
In article <12505@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> .... >> Although I am perfectly willing, myself, to trust *no men* at >> all (in fact this is what I do) not to rape me, few women are .... >> Ellen Eades >> -- >Ellen, >Not trusting ANY man not to rape you rings of paranoia, or you are just >flattering yourself by thinking you are such an irresistable target that >a good man could turn bad by just looking at you. Your remarks are an >abomination to decent men every where. I hope you can contain outrageous >remarks like this to your own mind and not subject two continents to such >thinking. > >ray Ray, You are an outrageous, unbeleivable asshole! How dare you to make a statement like that?! *YOUR* remarks are outrageous! Have you ever been raped? Or have been sexually assulted? No? Maybe you should have been, if *that* is the only way to get things through to you! Ellen has more than just a RIGHT to feel threatened, she has GOOD REASONS! Your idiotic remark about Ellen "flattering hereself" : how do you explain rapes of infants and old women? Not to say that when I'm 80 I will NOT find a 79 year old woman attractive, but why would anyone want to rape an old woman ( or a small child)? Do little kids "flatter" themselves when they avoid accepting rides from strangers? [Not that I beleive Ellen's position is entirely RATIONAL. I hope most men will agree with me that sex with un-willing partner is NOT satisfying, be it rape, or lack of real desire to have sex, or a "sympathy fuck". May be I am weird about this (I am in other things :-)) but I *don't* enjoy sex with a woman who does not enjoy it as well. I'd have more fun mastrubating! I hope I am not alone in prefering *mutual* pleasure .] More often than not rapes are committed NOT out of sexual need! MOST rapes are exibitions of rage, frustration, sick need to dominate some one, punishment, sadism, or some form of insanity. It is IRRELEVANT whether Ellen is a striking beauty or a double-bagger dog! Rapist would care little. Yes, dominating a beautiful woman might be appealing to some men. With or without her concent. That's the entire reason behind Playboy and the rest of porn -- to "posess" someone you can never have, be it even in picture form. (Quite a few religions view image/shadow/reflection of a person as a part of him/her) And yes, feminists and anti-porn activists, the CURRENT contents of porn are demeaning and insulting to women! Women are being portrayed as sex slaves, eager to please men, or being treated like shit and loving it. That crap breeds the "women are made to please" attitude. [Hmm... Wasn't Ray Frank a GOOD Christian? Is not Christianity sexist and unfair to women both in the Bible and in practice? Is that where you get your attitudes, Ray?] It's not Ellen's fault that men use sex as threat or punishment. "Fuck you!" is an insult. Why?! Don't people *enjoy* having sex? Is it not one of the most powerful pleasures and one of the most intimate forms of communication? Why should a promise of sex be a used in a negative connotation? Maybe you should read some research papers on rape, or talk to someone who has been raped, Ray. You could find that Ellen is not "flattering" herself, she is just trying not to get hurt. Too many women do! ( 50%?) And, Ray! Please next time keep your stupidity to yourself! Your attitudes are >abomination to decent men every where. I hope you can contain outrageous >remarks like this to your own mind and not subject two continents to such >thinking. You say it so well! (%-/) -- Disclamer: My employers go to church every Sunday, listen to Country music, and donate money to GOP. I am just a deviant. ----------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door, "Only through a violent revolution| Oleg Kiselev. can the existing order be pre- |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg served..."-Perfect Student Union |...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (10/30/85)
>> It is sad that Ellen feels that way, it is also sad that the >> many are >> damned with the few. But, what is the alternative to suspicion? >> >> Charlie Sorsby > The solution is NOT to mistrust everyone because that would lead to a > highly paranoid society... > The best measure you usually have is to simply listen to the overall > impression of them that you form over time. There is always something > behind words and actions of people. If you listen hard enough, it will > come through. But before you can hear, you have to quite down the > noise inside you. > > Farzin Mokhtarian While I admire Farzin's optimism about all our detective abilities, I can't bring myself to agree with him. I don't believe that everyone can gain an accurate impression of a person all the time; people and the pressures upon them change, and pressures influence behavior among other things. If I decide to date a man who, under certain very stressful conditions, has the potential to hit me, I may not know it till it happens. This can certainly happen with men who are potential rapists. Also, Farzin's posting does not even address the problem of rape by a new acquaintance; the guy who walks you home from a party, or the phone repairman who comes inside to test the line, or whatever. And as for my mistrusting everyone (or at least all men), I refer Farzin to Jeff Lichtman's well-worded reply to Ray on that subject. It's not that I go around my life looking at everyone with a penis and expecting that at some point it will be used against me; it's just that I live my life in a way that doesn't discount that possibility. And, as Charlie says above, I've found no comfortable alternative. Enough said, anyway. Ellen Eades -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (10/31/85)
Subject: Re: Re: Rape (The nature of Reality) > While I admire Farzin's optimism about all our detective > abilities, I can't bring myself to agree with him. I don't > believe that everyone can gain an accurate impression of a > person all the time; ... I am not really being "optimistic" here and I don't believe what you call "our detective abilities" will always work either. What I did say was that many times it is the best thing (or the only thing) you can rely on. > And as for my mistrusting everyone > (or at least all men), I refer Farzin to Jeff Lichtman's > well-worded reply to Ray on that subject. It's not that I go > around my life looking at everyone with a penis and expecting > that at some point it will be used against me; it's just that I > live my life in a way that doesn't discount that possibility. > And, as Charlie says above, I've found no comfortable alternative. > Enough said, anyway. > Ellen Eades If you think this is the best way to protect yourself, that's fine. That's what you should do. But even well-protected castles have doors to the outside world. That's because they want to keep out the bad guys but they also want to let in a good guy every now and then. Openness can compromise security but being closed can be a lot worse. So, you are right. There is no "comfortable alternative". I suggest you drop "comfortable" and just look for an "alternative". Farzin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have set out on a road without a lamp and the moon, the moon, the kind female, was always there."