beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/25/85)
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley), Message-ID: <842@mnetor.UUCP>: >> I think the problem here lies in proving rape. More than almost any other >> crime, the proof of rape depends on a person's state of mind. Furthermore, >> unlike any other crime I can think of, it depends on the state of the >> _victim's_ mind. >> >> If you point a gun at someone and demand they give you money, that's armed >> robbery. Period. States of mind don't enter into the case, only the >> actions matter. >> >If you point a gun at someone and demand that they "submit", that's armed >rape. If you force someone some other way, it is unarmed rape, but still >rape, just like unarmed theft is still theft. > >If you want to make a valid comparison, you should compare armed rape >with armed robbery, and unarmed rape with unarmed robbery. >If there are no weapons involved, theft could also depend in the state >of the victim's mind. > >"Why Officer, when I asked him to, he just handed over his whole paycheck >to me. I had no idea he didn't really want to!" >-- >Sophie Quigley Oh come on now. The fellow made a valid point. If I'm particularly into S&M, and it's *clear* to both myself and my lover that I *want* him to tie me up and do dastardly things to me with a fork, he has not raped me by doing so. If, on the other hand, he does *exactly the same things* to me against my will, I'm gonna want his ass *busted*. His actions are the same in both cases, but one is rape and one is not. That's why rape is such a tough problem legally. The actions of the accused are, in most cases, not enough to prove rape. The wishes of the victim at the time is often all that can distinguish between rape and...well, you know. And that's why judges have tried saying that because she was wearing clothes that "clearly" demonstrated her desire to have sex, she must have wanted it and therefore it wasn't rape. They need some way of determining whether or not it was against her will. Clothes are a particularly lousy factor to consider, but they do need *something*. It is likely that if a weapon was used then it was against her will. But if I remember correctly, weapons are not involved in most rapes. So the fellow (sorry, I forget who) was correct in pointing out that it's a tough charge to prove. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (05/30/85)
> Oh come on now. The fellow made a valid point. If I'm particularly > into S&M, and it's *clear* to both myself and my lover that I *want* > him to tie me up and do dastardly things to me with a fork, he has not > raped me by doing so. If, on the other hand, he does *exactly the same > things* to me against my will, I'm gonna want his ass *busted*. > > The wishes of > the victim at the time is often all that can distinguish between rape > and...well, you know. And that's why judges have tried saying that > because she was wearing clothes that "clearly" demonstrated her desire > to have sex, she must have wanted it and therefore it wasn't rape. Just because she's wearing clothes which "clearly" demonstrate her desire to have sex does NOT mean she clearly desires to have sex with anyone. In the stereotypical case of the woman dressing to invite approaches by men in general, she still has the right to choose which one(s) and when. (the lack of) clothes do not under any circumstances excuse rape. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/04/85)
From: sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten), Message-ID: <2243@sun.uucp>: >> The wishes of >> the victim at the time is often all that can distinguish between rape >> and...well, you know. And that's why judges have tried saying that >> because she was wearing clothes that "clearly" demonstrated her desire >> to have sex, she must have wanted it and therefore it wasn't rape. > >Just because she's wearing clothes which "clearly" demonstrate her desire >to have sex does NOT mean she clearly desires to have sex with anyone. >In the stereotypical case of the woman dressing to invite approaches by >men in general, she still has the right to choose which one(s) and when. >(the lack of) clothes do not under any circumstances excuse rape. > > Sunny I would SINCERELY APPRECIATE IT if you quoted me in context. The VERY NEXT SENTENCE of the posting you quoted stated that clothing was a "PARTICULARLY LOUSY" choice of things to use. This kind of BULLSHIT really pisses me off. -- --JB Life is just a bowl.