jdh@hou5g.UUCP (10/19/84)
As the original poster of (one of) the "is this rape" article(s), I'd like to state my reaction to the question of whether "leading a man on" (as described in the three given examples) gives away a woman's right to refuse intercourse. Nowhere in any of the 3 examples did the woman involved state that she was interested in intercourse. Neither did she promise to have intercourse. Yet, in many of the responses, the assumption was made repeatedly that the action on the part of the woman (wearing revealing clothing, sexy talk/ movement, heavy petting) was as good as verbal agreement to intercourse. Therefore, refusal of intercourse later was seen as a change of mind. One person responded, "I would be frustrated about the refusal in Case 3 [ heavy petting ] unless there was some good reason why (pregnant perhaps) or there had been a previous agreement that there would be no intercourse." The fact is, there was no agreement that there WOULD be intercourse (as described in the original question)! Yet the person quoted assumes an agreement to have intercourse by default, unless SPECIFICALLY stated otherwise. THIS assumption is wrong. In fact, it is a fallacious assumption on the part of a would-be rapist that *any* of the described acts is tantamount to agreement to intercourse. To state it yet again: participation in petting is NOT agreement to intercourse! It's agreement to petting. It may raise the possibility of intercourse as the next step. But that is all. (Indeed, if we were to use the logic that petting = agreement_to_intercourse, we could expand it to say that looking at someone is agreement to conversation is agreement to standing/sitting close is agreeement to touching is agreement to kissing is agreement to hugging is agreement to fondling is agreement to heavy petting is agreement... get it?) In fact (in case you haven't gathered), NOTHING is agreement to intercourse EXCEPT agreement to intercourse. True, if a woman has *agreed* to intercourse, then changes her mind, it must be very frustrating. I, for one, would not be interested in hanging around with someone who was in the habit of changing their mind... although I do believe a person is allowed to change their mind. But in none of the examples given did the woman change her mind!! Never did she agree to intercourse, then say no! And here's the part that will drive everyone nuts: In our society, there is a deeply ingrained belief which, when stated in its crudest form, can be put like this: The fact of being a woman is "leading a man on". The fact of being a woman is tantamount to agreement to intercourse (eventually). Until a woman specifically states otherwise (at which point she has changed her mind), she has agreed to intercourse. THIS belief is wrong.