jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (just being friendly) (01/07/84)
> I think that many women who have been raped are in an "emotional" prison - > which "prison" is worse is probably not worth debating. Which "prison" is worse is hardly the issue. That criminals can put a person through hell is bad, but the law cannot prevent it, at least not without interfering with our privacy to an extent I would find unacceptable. That the law would put an innocent person through hell is obviously under control of the law. It should avoid it as fervently as possible. > Haven't you ever been robbed or mugged? Have you ever heard of people saying > that it wasn't the loss, it was the sense of violation? Rape is bad news, > and I feel sorry (and a little scared) that some people just find it a > *frightening* act. As a matter of fact, I have been mugged. I have been sexually assaulted. In both cases I suffered some physical damage(not serious, but considerably more serious than the damage a minimal rape implies). Big deal. By the way, your article was the item closest to a flame I received. My next statement may prompt some more: if a person reacts to a rape, indecent exposure, bad joke, or a gift of flowers with a mental breakdown, that is the weakness of the victim, not the sole fault of the assailant. Only in the first case has the assailant actually committed an immoral act: he has rubbed a portion of his skin against the skin of the victim without the victim's permission, and has detained the victim for awhile. If the rape was vaginal, risk of pregnancy is also involved. Note that while I may sound like I am blaming the victim, this is not in the stereotypical way: the victim may have been absolutely blameless in the way he was victimized. The "feeling of violation", though, is a burden the victim places on himself. I will not use the fact that most people are raised to be good victims (don't resist; your life is worth more than your honor) to excuse the extreme way they react to such violations. Then one would have to use the nurture of the assailant to excuse HIS actions. Enough said, Azhrarn ...allegra!rayssd!ccieng5!jbf
mazur@inmet.UUCP (01/12/84)
#R:ccieng5:-22600:inmet:10900027:000:1366 inmet!mazur Jan 10 21:37:00 1984 > If a person reacts to a rape, indecent exposure, bad joke or > gift of flowers with a mental breakdown, that is the weakness > of the victim Well, jbf is right about that statement (as far as inviting more flames). Jbf's statement helps prove my point: that the reaction to rape/sexual assault is largely emotional (and lasting). I think that the point of the original note was to protest the jailing of innocent men in rape cases. I agree with that. Innocent people shouldn't have to go to jail. Then again, guilty people should always go to jail, and that doesn't always happen either. The problem is that jbf takes the stand that going to prison mistakenly is a much worse alternative than rape; in fact, jbf is so cynical about rape, his arguments lose credibility. I am certainly not proposing that all alleged rapists go to jail so that not one who is guilty goes free. I also find it interesting that jbf made no (public) comment about the other response (about jbf making sure that the public saw that his date was "willing" beforehand, so that he could "avoid" any rape charges). I've received a few comments about my initial response (with no flames except in the previous note from jbf). I'd appreciate any other responses (posted or mailed). Beth Mazur {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur
holt@parsec.UUCP (01/17/84)
#R:ccieng5:-22600:parsec:45000002:000:4856 parsec!holt Jan 15 15:12:00 1984 I don't know where you come from, but I certainly hope most of the men in this country don't share your attitude/opinion about rape and violence. Let us consider several points you raised in your note. 1. You seem to feel that the physical damage suffered in "minimal rape" is trivial: >As a matter of fact, I have been mugged. I have been sexually assaulted. In >both cases I suffered some physical damage(not serious, but considerably more >serious than the damage a minimal rape implies). Big deal. First let me say most rapes are not "minimal". Very often the victim is also beaten, stabbed, mutilated or just flat outright killed. I don't consider that trivial. But even in the "minimal" case there is still the extreme discomfort of lesions on the skin in a very sensitive area. That is a big deal! 2. You seem to categorize rape as a very insignificant act, and indicate that how the individual reacts to this act is solely the responsibility of that individual: >if a person reacts to a rape, indecent exposure, >bad joke, or a gift of flowers with a mental breakdown, that is the weakness >of the victim, not the sole fault of the assailant. >Only in the first case has >the assailant actually committed an immoral act: he has rubbed a portion of >his skin against the skin of the victim without the victim's permission, >and has detained the victim for awhile. If the rape was vaginal, risk of >pregnancy is also involved. I'm going to take this in two parts. First the act of rape is not merely one individual "rubbing" his skin against that of a victim. "Rubbing skin", to me conotates a rather gentle motion. Being forceablely fucked is in no way gentle. I'm not even going to get into the issue of why men have this desire to "rub" certain parts of their skin on certain parts of womens skin. Let it suffice to say that if it is skin on skin contact that they desire, then they should rub their skin with their hand. The "risk" of pregnancy is not trivial either. Many rape victims take a high dose of estrogen (I think it's this one) immediately following a rape, in order to reduce the "risk" of being pregnant. Taking one of those pills is something like going through rabies shots. They make you incredibly sick for a significant period of time. Then there are the women who don't believe that they will get pregnant or those that just don't believe in abortions. They end up pregnant and have to incur all the risks of pregnancy. (which even in this day and age is non trivial - pregnancy still ranks in the top ten as causes for death among women of child bearing age) ALL of this risk and physical discomfort is incurred to satisy the urge of some crazed male to "rub" his skin against hers. Let's move on to the most absurd observation in your entire note. 3. The feeling of violation, and is it justified in the victim of a rape. > "feeling of violation", though, is a burden the victim >places on himself. Let's establish some interestion facts here. 1. Rape is the only violent crime that is sexist - how many times do you hear of a rape trial where a man is accusing the woman of raping him?? 2. In how many cultures has the vagina been the womans most important attribute? Woman who were raped in some cultures were considered spoiled, the rapist had to pay the father damages for spoiling property, the woman could not marry and was considered an outcast. I'm going to try to cut this short - but basically, even in our enlightened/modern culture today - women are still viewed as "unclean" by many males after a rape. Additionally, we are raised to view our genitals as extremely personal property. Witness the fact that most clothing conceals the genitals. That pornography exists... AND in the USA we are raised to believe that we are free to do whatever we choose AS LONG AS our actions do not interfere with the rights of another individual. A rape violates the very foundation of many of our beliefs. It is perfectly justified for a woman to feel vicitmized after a rape, NOT just because of her personal reaction to the act, but because our basic beliefs have been violated as well. To conclude: Some men are more able to understand a womans feelings than others. You are obviously not one of those. Let me put into words, that I think you may be able to comprehend, my opinion of rape and rapists. Personally, I will try and kill the next man who tries to rape me, and as far as the law is concerned I think casteration is the solution to rape. Disclamer: I got into this conversation late. I cannot find the original note to which you are responding. So, I may be discussing the wrong subject. However, your attitude was so sick I thought it deserved a reponse in and of itself. charisse {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!infoswx!charisse
carey@seismo.UUCP (Marie Carey) (01/17/84)
Hooray to charisse on her article on rape. It was great. I posted an article about rape in net.women some time ago concerning the horrors of rape. Of course I received the expected flames from *men* about my strong stand on the issue. It makes me happy that other women out there feel as strongly as myself about the subject. I think that the subject has been dealt with much too leniently in the past and more women should speak out about such violent and humiliating crimes that are still occuring against women in the United States every day. What are the statistics now, a rape occurs once in every how many minutes? Sorry, I have not read the stats for the day, but I know that it is that many, TOO many. Thanks again to charisse for speaking out. If more women did so, maybe the attutude about the subject would change and not as many women would have to go through the hell of it all. M. Carey
jrt@hou5g.UUCP (01/17/84)
I too applaud charisse, and I do so from a man's point of view. Too often men can not 'see' or appreciate all of the ramifications of a rape, because they can not see it happening to their own physical person. I can not even claim full knowledge of what rape does to a woman. My knowledge only comes second hand, and even then it took a concerted effort on my part along with all of the sensitivity and understanding I could muster. The act of rape horrifies me, but to think that someone out their is trying to make it into a 'trivial or frivolous' act scares me. I hope that there are not too many more men out there that hold the same attitude. (** FRODO **) alias hou5g!jrt
smann@ihu1g.UUCP (01/18/84)
Sunday night, 60 Minutes had a segment on rapists and hormones. The lawyer of a convicted rapist who is sentenced to chemo-therapy rather than a prison sentence, made the statement "As rapes go, this one was rather mild." Did anyone else who saw this segment feel the sense of outrage that I did over this statement? Sherry Mann ihu1g!smann
walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (01/18/84)
Sherry,
Yes, I saw that 60 Minutes episode. I too was outraged over the lawyer's
attitudes. He also said something to the effect "Well, the victim didn't
seem too affected by it. She was very well adjusted." Aaarrrgghh!!!
Should she have come into court looking like a wild-eyed, disheveled
manic-depressive? I guess crime is OK if the victim subsequently SEEMS
well adjusted. Do they ever talk about how well adjusted a robbery victim
seems?
Thoroughly Disgusted,
B. Walshdak@hou5e.UUCP (01/18/84)
About that comment on 60 minutes from the lawyer: what REALLY made me burn was his reasoning. The woman was apparently dealing with the crime, and because she hadn't become a nervous wreck the rape was considered "mild". What's she supposed to do, act crazy until the trial? Debby Kirkman
saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/19/84)
Anybody out curious as to who posted the original article Clarisse was responding to? surprise! it was Laura Creighton. (not that it is relevant but I just thought some people might be interested to know that is was a women, when everybody assumed it was a man) Which just goes to show once more how dangerous typecasting is.
saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/19/84)
I didn't see it that show. Was one of the man one of the three who gang-raped a woman? (I would just like to know what to expect when someone tells me they are going to rape me "mildly")
kcwellsch@watrose.UUCP (Kenneth C. Wellsch) (01/19/84)
I too applaude the author. I believe there are a lot of men out there who also share such sentiments. I share the experiences of my male counterpart who previously submited a followup article. What is the solution to such a truly horrible crime? Mine is far to violent for the majority. Educating people to see the crime - not to try to hide it in the closet as so many try to do. It is a very serious crime - to me about THE WORST. The victim is left to try to survive... Now that is the cruelest form of Torture. What can I do to stop this crime? I ask your advice. Kenneth Wellsch Univ. of Waterloo Ontario, Canada
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (01/20/84)
! <-- wombat confuser Thank you Frodo, for shedding light on the difficult topic of rape. As a male, of course, I have no way of knowing precisely what it means to be a victim, but as a human being, I recently learned a lot about what it can do. I was the first lover of a woman who had been raped 4 years prior to our meeting, and she was still dealing with it. She had gone through ungodly hell on Earth, some of it as a result of guilt (she'd of course heard all those garbage arguments that everyone wants everything that happens to them), and partly out of rage that no punishment was being done to her rapist. It has now been 7 years since her rape; she still cannot forgive, and her psyche is permanently scarred. We became lovers before I knew any of this, and when she eventually told me, all I could do was cry for her. She explained that it had been impossible to relieve her sexual tension, because thinking of sex made her feel dirty, abused, and subhuman. If more males had had my experiences, I think that rape would be punishable by castration, as well as a hefty mandatory jail term, followed by a required period of psycoanalysis and close monitoring. This is serious business, and when someone talks out their ass about someone wanting that, it just brings back all the emotions I shared with this woman. I was enraged with her at the same time I felt the deepest sadness and pity for her. Only when males come to realize that a rape is not a trivial event will we at last see an end to the argument "she was asking for it." In this case at least, she was definitely not inviting violence. She was in a public parking ramp, other people were nearby, and she was dressed as the conservative 40-ish businesswoman she is. She never talks suggestively, nor walks in anything other than the way a woman walks. Her attacker came up from behind and knocked her unconscious as she opened her car door. He put her in the car, and drove out of the ramp. When she became conscious, he forced her at knifepoint to direct him to her appartment, where he continuously raped her over one entire demented weekend. The worst part is that as he climaxed, he continously beat her on the face, chest, and stomach. She still carries many physical scars as well as the mental ones. I challenge *ANY* male who reads net.women to read that and respond that if this horror had occurred to his mother, girlfriend, sister, lover, wife, daughter, or friend, to say that he would try to help her forgive. It goes beyond imagination that any thinking person would say, "Oh my mom? Yes, she was raped a few years back, but she was asking for it." -- Gary Benson John Fluke Mfg. Co. Everett, WA, USA
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (01/20/84)
Jbf's statement helps prove my point: that the reaction to rape/sexual
assault is largely emotional (and lasting).
My statement DOES NOT HELP PROVE the point cited, although I would not argue
against that point. I was trying to isolate the effects INHERENT in the act
of rape -- consequences that MUST follow, regardless of the emotional
constitution of the victim. These effects are few.
This does not imply that the average rape is not serious -- it implies that
rapes can cover an enormously wide spectrum that is fruitless to summarize
as a single type of crime. I would say that the real crimes committed during
a particular instance of rape are usually far more serious than the rape itself,
and not necessarily unique to women (i.e.: assault, battery, humiliation and
coercion). But while both a woman raped at knife point, and cruelly beaten
and disfigured in the process, and a wife whose husband takes her when she
isn't in the mood (without more than a mild protest on her part -- which might
have been playful) have TECHNICALLY been raped, the offenses are not
commensurable.
Then again, guilty people should always go to jail, and
that doesn't always happen either.
I will spare you my opinion on our penal system, but please don't take that as
an agreement that "guilty people should always go to jail". The difference
between the rapist (who might not be punished) and the society (who may send
innocent scapegoats to jail ) is that the former are CRIMINALS, whose actions
I do not approve, and the latter is you and me. We can not control the
behavior of every degenerate outside the law (without totally destroying
everyone's privacy), but WE CAN try to insure a just legal system. I would
rather worry about the criminals that might try to victimize me than the
society that might randomly pick me as a scapegoat.
The problem is that jbf takes the stand that going to prison
mistakenly is a much worse alternative than rape; in fact, jbf is
so cynical about rape, his arguments lose credibility.
I don't see my "stand" as a problem: I would prefer 15 minutes of coercion
to years of it (in both cases, we have an innocent victim; in both cases,
there may be emotional scars -- but the former allows you to get on with your
life a lot sooner than the latter does).
I also find it interesting that jbf made no (public) comment about
the other response (about jbf making sure that the public saw
that his date was "willing" beforehand, so that he could "avoid"
any rape charges).
Would it have been worth it? Actually, there was some private commentary
on that one, but the original was a separate posting, in a less serious vein.
I don't like to confuse a serious discussion with an obliquely related
satire.
I'd appreciate any other responses (posted or mailed).
Your wish is my command (sometimes, anyway)
Azhrarn
--
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
~~ ~~
~ = = ~
~ o | o ~ jens
\ + /
\ --- /
\___/smann@ihu1g.UUCP (01/20/84)
>About that comment on 60 minutes from the lawyer: what REALLY >made me burn was his reasoning. The woman was apparently dealing >with the crime, and because she hadn't become a nervous wreck the >rape was considered "mild". What's she supposed to do, act crazy >until the trial? And yet there are others, including those who have posted to this newsgroup, who claim that if a woman does show emotional after-effects from the crime, there is something wrong with her. Just another case of women being damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Sherry Mann ihu1g!smann
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (01/21/84)
First of all, please leave such gems as "I don't know where you come from, but",
"your attitude was so sick", and "words, that I think you may be able to
comprehend" for net.flame. I will try to refrain from insulting you throughout
this article, treating only your arguments. If you persist, I will nevertheless
refrain from insulting you here, but insert a reference to a separate net.flame
article dedicated to denigrating you (so far, no such article has been written).
You respond to
1. You seem to feel that the physical damage suffered in "minimal rape" is
trivial:
with
First let me say most rapes are not "minimal". Very often the victim is
also beaten, stabbed, mutilated or just flat outright killed. I don't
consider that trivial. But even in the "minimal" case there is still the
extreme discomfort of lesions on the skin in a very sensitive area. That
is a big deal!
This initially ignores my attempt to isolate the "minimal rape", the least
offensive act that would qualify as an instance of rape by dragging in other
rapes whose possibility I HAVE NEVER DENIED. But you see, I think that even
if you are NOT raping someone, it is wrong to beat, stab, mutilate, or just
flat outright kill them. Beating, stabbing, mutilating, or flat outright
killing are separate crimes, and should be treated separately. The "minimal"
case does not even involve lesions of the skin: if the woman is insufficiently
lubricated, the rapist (to remain minimal) would provide artificial lubrication.
My point is that even if the rapist is as gentle as a criminal could be, the
defining characteristic of rape is the forcible detention of a woman for
sexual use. Any laws dealing with rape, any statements made about it, should
consider this essential characteristic rather than frequently concomitant
crimes.
2. You seem to categorize rape as a very insignificant act, and indicate
that how the individual reacts to this act is solely the responsibility
of that individual:
How an individual reacts to ANY act is the responsibility of that individual.
The act is the responsibility of the actor. Thus, the rapist is responsible
for the rape, while the victim is responsible for her reactions.
If it seems that I am categorizing rape as "very insignificant", this is by
comparison to the usual categorization, not in any absolute sense. If ANY
rapist, even the most 'considerate', were killed during the commission of the
crime, it would be little loss -- it was a risk the rapist took when he made
his decision to rape. But the same, as far as I am concerned, holds true for
any form of illegal detention. If someone sends "de-programmers" to capture
their Mooney kid, and the kid kills them in an attempt to escape -- that's
life! That's death!
"Rubbing skin", to me conotates a rather gentle motion. Being forceablely
fucked is in no way gentle.
As already stated, the force of the fucking (such language!) does not a
rapist make. Remember that the penis is a very sensitive organ, and
even a rapist might not want to give himself blisters. While
the ACT is not "gentle", the motion may well be.
I'm not even going to get into the issue of why men have
this desire to "rub" certain parts of their skin on certain parts of
womens skin.
Good.
ALL of this risk and physical discomfort is incurred
to satisy the urge of some crazed male to "rub" his skin against hers.
I doubt it. While I am no expert on statistics, it seems to be the general
line that most rapes are motivated by hostility rather than excessive lust.
I will concede that in many specific cases this might be true, but more often
than not there is no rape and the woman is as urgent, careless, and unprepared
as the male.
While I agree that accidental pregnancy is a serious consideration, it applies
only to vaginal rape(and, if such a rape is committed, the additional risk the
woman undergoes makes it 'non-minimal'). I believe that even if you could
convince all rapists to make only oral and anal assaults, the situation would
not be improved much.
3. The feeling of violation, and is it justified in the victim of
a rape.
Your discussion regarding this is the most worthwhile and interesting part of
your article. In most details, I agree with you.
There are exceptions:
1. Rape is the only violent crime that is sexist - how many times
do you hear of a rape trial where a man is accusing the woman
of raping him??
For one thing, homosexual rape exists without question. For another,
a man would be laughed out of court making any such accusation, EVEN
IF IT WERE TRUE.
I also think that there is a legitimate place in society for pornography (it
aids masturbation), but that is not germane to the discussion at hand.
2. In how many cultures has the vagina been the womans most important
attribute? Woman who were raped in some cultures were considered
spoiled, the rapist had to pay the father damages for spoiling
property, the woman could not marry and was considered an outcast.
I'm going to try to cut this short - but basically, even in our
enlightened/modern culture today - women are still viewed as "unclean"
by many males after a rape.
I am aware that such attitudes still exist. I don't like them. Much of
my desire to see rape treated differently is due to a need to disavow such
outdated prejudices. A WOMAN HAS NOT BEEN 'DEVALUED' BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN
RAPED. She has been forced to undergo an unpleasant experience.
Regarding her 'right to feel violated', I should have been more specific.
Of course she has a right to feel violated -- she has been. However, the
well balanced woman should feel violated for a while and go on with her
life. If she ruins her whole life with worries and recriminations, the
sad part as I see it is more in how society has warped her attitudes than
how the rapist has abused her.
There are many women who have never been raped in their entire lives and
still let the fear of the crime warp their lives to an extent that seems
unacceptable to me. The measures many women take to protect themselves
against rape seem far harsher to me than the actual occurence of the crime.
In your conclusion, you go back to your ad hominems about how insensitive
I am. Spare me.
Personally, I will try and kill the next man who tries to rape me,
I have no objections to that, as long as you get him in the act. If you
try to avenge yourself afterwards, and are caught in the act, you should
undergo whatever penalties normally exist for murder (although in my heart
I might sympathize with you).
Azhrarn
--
Reachable as
....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbfjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (01/23/84)
x
From: inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson)
Message-ID: <173@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jan-84 21:06:00 CST
I challenge *ANY* male who reads net.women to read that and
respond that if this horror had occurred to his mother,
girlfriend, sister, lover, wife, daughter, or friend, to say
that he would try to help her forgive. It goes beyond
imagination that any thinking person would say, "Oh my mom?
Yes, she was raped a few years back, but she was asking for
it."
Since when is a belief that she was asking for it a prequisite for
forgiveness? I would try to help her free herself from her guilt
and pain: forgiveness may be hard and long to come by, but it is
superior to vengeance.
Which is not to say the rapist should have gotten off, or was not
responsible, or any crap like that. Something should be done to
prevent the rapist from doing it again; what is a different question.
But hate is not the answer.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqmjk@tty3b.UUCP (01/25/84)
Yeah, the comment from the defense attorney on Sixty Minutes was pretty stupid. He even stuck to it when pressed. But I think there was more to that story than the stupidity of one man. It seems there is a very real question: does one solve a social problem by subjecting physically, mentally or socially retarded people to life in a physically, socially and mentally disturbed context? More succinctly, does one 'rehabilitate' rapists by subjecting them to (repeated) rapes in prison? Mike Kelly
mazur@inmet.UUCP (01/30/84)
> If a person reacts to a rape, indecent exposure, bad joke or > gift of flowers with a mental breakdown, that is the weakness > of the victim Well, jbf is right about that statement (as far as inviting more flames). Jbf's statement helps prove my point: that the reaction to rape/sexual assault is largely emotional (and lasting). I think that the point of the original note was to protest the jailing of innocent men in rape cases. I agree with that. Innocent people shouldn't have to go to jail. Then again, guilty people should always go to jail, and that doesn't always happen either. The problem is that jbf takes the stand that going to prison mistakenly is a much worse alternative than rape; in fact, jbf is so cynical about rape, his arguments lose credibility. I am certainly not proposing that all alleged rapists go to jail so that not one who is guilty goes free. I also find it interesting that jbf made no (public) comment about the other response (about jbf making sure that the public saw that his date was "willing" beforehand, so that he could "avoid" any rape charges). I've received a few comments about my initial response (with no flames except in the previous note from jbf). I'd appreciate any other responses (posted or mailed). Beth Mazur {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur