greenber@acf4.UUCP (09/21/84)
<> An interesting thought (perhaps!)?????? Apparently the woman in the New Bedford rape incident willingly had sex with SOME of the men. And MAY have been raped by some of the men. Whether this is true or not is not the issue. Consider the following scenario: A woman goes into a bar. Gets a little drunk, and decides to have sex with a number of men. She has sex with perhaps the first and second man. No rape has been committed. Whilst the third man is having intercourse with her she changes her mind. She demands that the man cease. He doesn't. He is in the middle of intercourse, and (perhaps for those male animailistic reasons!) opts to continue. Has she been raped? Does the man have any rights. He is sexually aroused, and "merely" because the woman has decided to stop, must he??? If he does not stop, then he is having sex with the women "against her will" (a common definition of rape). But she did initiate the action. Because she changes her mind ar any time she wants to, does that define rape? I'm confused. What are the man's rights here? Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
consult@uwmacc.UUCP (MACC Consultants) (09/23/84)
<food for the line eater>
Re: What are the man's rights here?
Simple: the man has the right to his own body. Period.
Poeple are entitled to change their mind. If the woman agreed to go to
a picnic with the man, and then changed her mind, does he have
the right to force her to go to the picnic, just because she's
already in the car, and he REALLY wants her to go?
Of course not.
So why is this so different?
Just because she has agreed to share her body with him up to a certain point,
why does it mean that she has given up her control of it? It's still HER
body isn't it ? Or has her body simply been reduced to an object for his
use and pleasure?
Sue Brunkow @ U Wisc-MACC
...seismo/uwvax/maccvax/consult
or: sue=brunkow@maccwisc.mailnet
or: sue=brunkow%maccwisc.mailnet@mit-multics.arpa
{ This space for rent. }ecl@hocsj.UUCP (09/24/84)
REFERENCE: <10400011@acf4.UUCP>, <332@uwmacc.UUCP> >Poeple are entitled to change their mind. If the woman agreed to go to >a picnic with the man, and then changed her mind, does he have >the right to force her to go to the picnic, just because she's >already in the car, and he REALLY wants her to go? >Of course not. >So why is this so different? >Just because she has agreed to share her body with him up to a certain point, >why does it mean that she has given up her control of it? It's still HER >body isn't it ? Or has her body simply been reduced to an object for his >use and pleasure? > Sue Brunkow @ U Wisc-MACC This is a load of dingos' kidneys! The original question (I believe) was if a woman begins to have have sex with a man and then in the middle of it (so to speak), decides not to, and the man "refuses" to stop, is it rape? A better analogy would be if she agrees to go on a picnic and they are halfway there on a freeway (between exits), and she decides she doesn't want to go, if he doesn't turn around IMMEDIATELY, is it kidnapping? (Even this is not a perfect analogy.) There is some point at which it becomes difficult to control one's bodily functions; that's why withdrawal is a *rotten* birth control method. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (09/24/84)
I received this response via mail which had a mucked-up header, so I will respond via the Net: I said: >>There is some point at which it becomes difficult to control one's bodily >>functions; that's why withdrawal is a *rotten* birth control method. The response said: >It is not really that hard if the guy cares. So don't believe anything >they might say to you. I am not speaking (typing?) of my personal experiences, but of the general consensus of opinion. However,, penetration without ejaculation is still rape (under all statutes I know of). So since it takes a finite time to withdraw, it doesn't really matter--there will be some period after which she says "stop" that there will still be penetration. Therefore, no matter how caring he is, it's still rape. I realize this is a picayune point--but then that's how the law as we know it works. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (09/26/84)
>>>Re: What are the man's rights here? >>> >>>Simple: the man has the right to his own body. Period. >>> >>>Poeple are entitled to change their mind. If the woman agreed to go to >>>a picnic with the man, and then changed her mind, does he have >>>the right to force her to go to the picnic, just because she's >>>already in the car, and he REALLY wants her to go? >>>Of course not. >>> >>>So why is this so different? >>>Just because she has agreed to share her body with him up to a certain point, >>>why does it mean that she has given up her control of it? It's still HER >>>body isn't it ? Or has her body simply been reduced to an object for his >>>use and pleasure? >>> >>> Sue Brunkow @ U Wisc-MACC You're right Sue, a person's body is always their own. As with all rights we should be careful how we wield them. In the case discussed I agree that the woman has the right to say "No, stop!", I also think that action would make her a jerk. It is sometimes difficult to seperate the idea of right and responsibility, what is legally ok and what is morally ok, right? Peter Barbee
agz@pucc-k (banta) (09/27/84)
Why force when you can manipulate and persuade? :-)
Andy Banta
{}pur-ee!pucc-k!agz
"Do you now miss them and the things that they said?"greenber@acf4.UUCP (09/28/84)
<> But that was the whole point of the article. The woman, by her own choosing, can arbitrarily call "rape" at anytime. And the MOMENT she does so, the man is guilty. This is what what was suppossed to have happened up in New Bedford... Shouldn't there be some law allowing the man to charge the women with some crime??? I know that is sounds weird, but just imagine yourself there for a moment AS THE MAN. Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (09/30/84)
>But that was the whole point of the article. The woman, by her own choosing, >can arbitrarily call "rape" at anytime. And the MOMENT she does so, the man >is guilty. > >This is what what was suppossed to have happened up in New Bedford... > >Shouldn't there be some law allowing the man to charge the women with >some crime??? I know that is sounds weird, but just imagine yourself >there for a moment AS THE MAN. > >Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <---- Yes, she can call rape at any time, which means that if you don't stop NOW, it *will become* rape. All you have to do is stop. Cease and Desist. You are not automatically guilty just becasue a woman yells rape. The whole point is permission. You must stop when permission is revoked.. That simple. You have no need of a counter charge if you haven't harrassed the woman, she won't charge you with rape, right? Or were you failing to take "No" as answer? -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny :-> Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/02/84)
Since people are splitting hairs (if you'll excuse the expression), I point out that if the woman waits until a few seconds before the man has an orgasm to say "No", she has given up control whether she likes it or not - since the man basically has also. If any case like this did come up (I'd find it pretty hard to believe), I think both the man and woman should be laughed out of the courtroom as damn fools. The woman for saying "no" at the time she did, and the man for having anything to do with her in the first place. ornery as ever, Jeff Winslow
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (10/10/84)
Excuse me, I know this discussion has gone on for a long time,
but I have to interject.
Re. all the talk about the woman in the New Bedford rape having
originally consented to intercourse and then changing her mind
'midstream', as it were: JUST WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION?????
I live in the area and I followed this case quite closely and it was
*never* (and I repeat *never*) determined that she consented at any
time. It was, in fact, *alleged* by the only defendant who actually
admitted to having sex of any kind with her, but his testimony was
questionable at best.
I think we're back to an age-old question, which has been answered
many times on this net and will be answered (again) by me:
"When does No not mean No?" "Never." This applies to more than
just sex, mind you, but it seems to garner the more emotional reactions
when it is applied to sex (more specifically, women/girls saying no to
sex with men/boys).
I know that men have a real fear of being falsely accused of rape, but,
seriously, how many of you have actually known the type of woman you
think may do that? If so, did you end up in bed with her? That sort
of situation happens a lot more often in "True Story" than it does in
real life. However, misinterpreting what may seem to be conflicting
signals and then "forging on ahead" even when the woman has said no,
seems to be a pretty smug "I know what you mean even though you're
not saying it" solution to the confusion. When in doubt, why not
actually believe the woman?
This discussion has gone on long enough, and I haven't added anything
that hasn't been said hundreds of times before, so I'll retreat back
to my private mailing lists, where we actually say *new* things.
--Heather Emanuel {allegra, linus, decvax!brunix} rayssd!hxeciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (10/17/84)
> > > >>>Poeple are entitled to change their mind. If the woman agreed to go to > >>>a picnic with the man, and then changed her mind, does he have > >>>the right to force her to go to the picnic, just because she's > >>>already in the car, and he REALLY wants her to go? > >>>Of course not. > >>> If we combine this analogy with the question of exactky when a woman can change her mind and expect her wishes to be respected, we might get something like this: A woman agrees to go on a picnic with a man. As they are driving down the expressway, she changes her mind and demands to be taken home. The man thinks, "OK, I'll get off at the next exit and turn around." Before this happens, she flags down a passing police car and accuses the man of kidnapping. When the man protests that he was intending to respect her wishes but wasn't able to, she replies that he could have made an illegal U-turn across the median. In this case, the court would have to decide which one was acting in a "reasonable" manner, which is something courts have to decide about all the time. If the driver had actually passed up several exits, he would probably be found to be at fault. If the passenger had insisted on his performing an illegal act whic did not significantly affect her position (e.g. the next exit was a few feet beyond the U-turn area), she might be found to be unreasonable. In the sexual case, the two extremes might be illustrated by her saying "No" while the man is in the middle of an ejaculation (when voluntary muscle control is partially lost) and having to wait a minute or so for him to recover, compared to saying "No" and having the man hold her down and continue intercourse for another hour. Since most real cases would fall between these extremes, it comes down to what actions and time intervals are "reasonable". Here's another comparison which I think shows how most people view the question of what to do when rights are in conflict, primarily depending on the seriousness of what is happening. Case 1: five people sign a suicide pact, and decide to all die by driving off a bridge together. Along the way one changes his mind and demands to get out. Case 2: immediately after taking off on a flight between New York and Chicago on a commercial airliner a passenger changes his mind and demands to be taken back to NY immediately. I think most people would say that in Case 1 the other people should honor the person's changed wishes, but in the second case they shouldn't. This is because death is more important than the inconvenience of being delayed in getting back to NY. On the other handif the airline passenger had just suffered a heart attack, than people would probably say that his right to immediate medical attention would outway the other people's convenience. Since I happen to think sex is pretty important, I suppose that sexual changes of mind are closer to case 1 than case 2. The point I am trying to make is that anyone's rights to control control over his or her own body and actions are rarely absolute. Comments on the appropriateness of the analogies and analyses will be appreciated. Mike Ciaraldi ciaraldi@rochester seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (10/19/84)
> I think we're back to an age-old question, which has been answered > many times on this net and will be answered (again) by me: > "When does No not mean No?" "Never." This applies to more than > just sex, mind you, but it seems to garner the more emotional reactions > when it is applied to sex (more specifically, women/girls saying no to > sex with men/boys). > Come on! There's a familiar way young women in their teens act toward guys: it's called "playing hard to get". One essentially acts as if one doesn't want to make the acquaintance of the guy one really wants to meet, and it is calculated that such actions are supposed to act as some sort of "test" or "encouragement" for the guy to actually overcome the lady's reticence. I later learned, to my regret, that many ladies I asked out really wanted to go out with me, but that I took their "no" as meaning "no", and not "keep trying, I'm testing you to see how much you want to go out with me." Don't take me wrong. I agree that "no" means "no". But how do you expect men to act when they were raised among women who rewarded their persistence in not seeing their "no" as "no"? A bit of honesty between the sexes would go a long way here. > I know that men have a real fear of being falsely accused of rape, but, > seriously, how many of you have actually known the type of woman you > think may do that? That's not what I'm worried about. What worries me are the calls to loosen the requirements of evidence to bring a conviction against an accused rapist. It sometimes appears to me that feminists want the courts to "just believe us, for we wouldn't bring this sort of thing against anybody unless it really happened". Taking the accusation as prima-facaie evidence that the crime ACTUALLY happened, without taking ANY steps to actually verify that the crime did happen. Get a woman just like JR Ewing, and she just might scream rape to just get rid of some nasty competitors. Sorry, but I believe that women are just as capable of great evil as men are. > However, misinterpreting what may seem to be conflicting > signals and then "forging on ahead" even when the woman has said no, > seems to be a pretty smug "I know what you mean even though you're > not saying it" solution to the confusion. When in doubt, why not > actually believe the woman? As I noted before, I DID do that, and wound up with a pretty barren social life while I was young. Things don't seem to have changed at all getting into adulthood either. I'll just "meekly back off" and not be a "real man" (as Ken perlow noted in another article). > > --Heather Emanuel {allegra, linus, decvax!brunix} rayssd!hxe Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech
densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) (10/26/84)
Personally, when I hear "no" and suspect that it may not
mean "no", I ask. After that point, if the woman is not honest
with me, I would probably loose interest. I have, however, never
been in that situation and been treated dishonestly. For me,
the bottom line of this issue (knowing what is appropriate
and when) is respect. I hope that most of us care about a
person we are in a sexual relationship with, at least enough to
respect their wishes concerning limits in sexual activity,
and also enough to be honest about what we really want.
I don't care much for "the dating game," nor do I care
to date someone who is into it.
Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf College
path: {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge
--"Honesty is such a lonely word..."