meister@linus.UUCP (Phillip W. Servita) (10/10/85)
OK. i have refrained from posting from this newsgroup for about a year now,
and sporadically read it to see if anything NEW is ever said. I never find
anything new said here. i do seem to see that there is one person here who
is saying EVERYTHING i would say anyway, even down to his computer program
argument (which for N years i have had a variant of as well). NOW DONT HIT
'n' yet just because i agree with Rich Rosen. Since he is on, i have felt
no need to post here. Invariably he says exactly what i would. Until now.
I think that he may be missing a way to get a bonifide NEW point into this
stupid, unsolvable argument. Hence, the following is directed at the pro-
life side of this group. (However, of course, everybody is free to respond)
As usual, in any abortion argument, the topic of rape appears. "But what
if she was raped?" Bleah. Poor Question. Unrelated to the general topic of
Abortion On Demand. However, upon looking at this further, i had an idea.
And thus i raise the following question to be answered. I would like to see
the responses. I would like to see everybody post their response such that
everybody else may see it, and (allowing for Usenet delays which may have
made it possible for you to recieve a response BEFORE this article) i would
like you to respond to the net immediately after reading this article. It is
(as far as i am concerned) a very easy question to answer. This way, all
the answers will be (hopefully) in one large clump. I will then respond to
the answers. Do not cross-post to net.women, as this really isnt relevant
there. (wait till the response comes). OK. Here is the question:
----------------------------
| Why is rape illegal? |
----------------------------
-the venn buddhist
PS. my reasons are probably no different than yours.
--
-----------------------------------------------
"Of course the Nielsen ratings are accurate...
We proved it in a taste test!"
-----------------------------------------------
-the venn buddhistwjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/12/85)
In article <590@linus.UUCP> meister@linus.UUCP (Philip W. Servita) writes: > ---------------------------- > | Why is rape illegal? | > ---------------------------- It is a violation of a person's right to control over <appropriate pronoun> body. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/14/85)
Phillip W. Servita asks:
>Why is rape illegal?
It's not! Rape is SOMETIMES illegal, sometimes not. For example, in most
states it is legal to rape your wife. Etc. Also, it seems absurd to me
to call something illegal if someone does it and is not convicted for it,
or especially if they are actually acquitted, so many rapes are not illegal,
by a reasonable definition of 'illegal'.
In case you were asking, Why do we abhor rape?, I don't think this has a
direct answer. Being raped often ruins a woman's life. At least it has
a profound negative effect on the rest of it. The fact that women are
likely to be raped prevents women from living normal lives and feeling free
to travel at night, or to talk with strange men, or to go to some places
alone. But what makes these things undesirable can only be axiomatic, or
defined in terms of other things that must be axiomatic.matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/17/85)
>>Why is rape illegal? [PHILLIP W. SERVITA] > It's not! Rape is SOMETIMES illegal, sometimes not. For example, in most > states it is legal to rape your wife. Etc. [ALAN J. ROSENTHAL] In those jurisdictions where forced sex with one's wife is legal, rape is DEFINED so as to exclude such sex; therefore, in such jurisdictions, IT IS NOT LEGALLY RAPE. However rape is defined, it is always defined as a crime, therefore the statement "it is legal to rape X" is never true. > Also, it seems absurd to me > to call something illegal if someone does it and is not convicted for it, > or especially if they are actually acquitted, so many rapes are not illegal, > by a reasonable definition of 'illegal'. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] Wow! That means the people who broke into our apartment locker and stole our dishes didn't do anything illegal -- after all, the police never caught them, so they were never convicted for it. Most criminals are never arrested; most of those arrested never get indicted; and most of those indicted never go to trial, let alone get convicted. If this is a reasonable definition of "illegal," then "legal" must mean "anything you can get away with doing and escape punishment." > In case you were asking, Why do we abhor rape?, I don't think this has a > direct answer. Being raped often ruins a woman's life. At least it has > a profound negative effect on the rest of it. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] Yup. And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to heavy punishment. WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) Now -- if Mr. Servita has some sort of analogy with anti-abortion laws in mind, let him make it. It ought to be apparent from the preceding paragraph just what sort of analogy Matt Rosenblatt would make. But if we are going to see a rehash of Susan Brownmiller's preposterous bilge tripe, please spare us. -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
>>>Why is rape illegal? [PHILLIP W. SERVITA] >> It's not! Rape is SOMETIMES illegal, sometimes not. For example, in most >> states it is legal to rape your wife. Etc. [ALAN J. ROSENTHAL] > In those jurisdictions where forced sex with one's wife is legal, > rape is DEFINED so as to exclude such sex; therefore, in such > jurisdictions, IT IS NOT LEGALLY RAPE. However rape is defined, > it is always defined as a crime, therefore the statement "it is > legal to rape X" is never true. [ROSENBLATT] I find it frightening that Rosenblatt has written exactly what I would have written here. He is right. Though I would have rephrased the original question to read "why is forced sex, often called rape, a crime?" Admittedly, there are situations where forced sex is legal (unfortunately). >> Also, it seems absurd to me >> to call something illegal if someone does it and is not convicted for it, >> or especially if they are actually acquitted, so many rapes are not illegal, >> by a reasonable definition of 'illegal'. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] > Wow! That means the people who broke into our apartment locker and > stole our dishes didn't do anything illegal -- after all, the police > never caught them, so they were never convicted for it. Most criminals > are never arrested; most of those arrested never get indicted; and most > of those indicted never go to trial, let alone get convicted. If this > is a reasonable definition of "illegal," then "legal" must mean > "anything you can get away with doing and escape punishment." This is really frightening. Another complete agreement (Rosenblatt has said again exactly what I would have said.) >> In case you were asking, Why do we abhor rape?, I don't think this has a >> direct answer. Being raped often ruins a woman's life. At least it has >> a profound negative effect on the rest of it. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] > Yup. And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to > heavy punishment. WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed > in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the > government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after > seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, > mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak > for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful > men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has > ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) (Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt? Respecting the rights of women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-) The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the women. Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason. The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property"). Thus I disagree with both RosenTHAL and RosenBLATT here. > Now -- if Mr. Servita has some sort of analogy with anti-abortion laws > in mind, let him make it. It ought to be apparent from the preceding > paragraph just what sort of analogy Matt Rosenblatt would make. But there is in fact no place for such an analogy, since the original premise is blatantly false. I find it quaint that an anti-feminist like Matt would claim that rape was originally illegal out of respect for women's rights to make his point. You still haven't answered that woman's questions (and mine) about what is so heinous about things like feminism. You asserted this is though it were obvious, and left us all hanging. We're all waiting on the edge of our seats... > But if we are going to see a rehash of Susan Brownmiller's preposterous > bilge tripe, please spare us. I haven't read it, but given your eagerness to simply dismiss it (because you don't like it and perhaps can't defend against it), perhaps it SHOULD be brought up. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/21/85)
In article <799@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >In article <590@linus.UUCP> meister@linus.UUCP (Philip W. Servita) writes: >> ---------------------------- >> | Why is rape illegal? | >> ---------------------------- > >It is a violation of a person's right to control over <appropriate pronoun> >body. > > STella Calvert > (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) A basic precept of US law is that everyone has to right to be secure in their person and effects. Clearly one is not secure in their person if they are raped. This is not the same as the right to control one's body. Our society restricts our control of our bodies in many ways. Suicide is illegal. The government attempts to restrict what substances we can put into our bodies. There are many medical operations, procedures, and drugs that cannot be obtained in the US. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
quint@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Amqueue) (10/21/85)
In article <2232@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > >Yup. And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to >heavy punishment. WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed >in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the >government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after >seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, >mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak >for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful >men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has >ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) > -- Matt Rosenblatt I know nothing about Jewish law, but I do know something about general history, being in a Medeival Recreation Group... The more probable reason that MEN outlawed rape was because a) when done to a virgin, it decreased the girl's value on the marriage market, and so the girl would have to have a larger dower, or would fetch a lower bride-price (depending on the culture) b) since there were no common contraceptives (once Christianity got rolling and any knowledge of herbs was considered witchcraft, aside from the vatican's opinions on contraceptives) the woman was most likely to get pregnant, and there would be a mouth to feed that would be useless... what man wants to break his back feeding someone else's kid, especially one not wanted? And think of the disgrace to the nobility! And it obviously proved the woman was a slut, cause what man would do that without provocation.... So while Im sure there were men who took into consideration the things mentioned by Matt, I think it was mostly cause Rape was 'damaging the merchandise'; women were considered property till a depressingly long time into this century... /amqueue
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (10/23/85)
In article <670@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: >A basic precept of US law is that everyone has to right to be secure >in their person and effects. Clearly one is not secure in their >person if they are raped. This is not the same as the right to >control one's body. Our society restricts our control of our >bodies in many ways. Suicide is illegal. The government attempts >to restrict what substances we can put into our bodies. >There are many medical operations, procedures, and drugs that >cannot be obtained in the US. > I wonder if the government is making sure that "everyone has a right to be secure in their person and effects", or if it is saying, "You don't *know* enough to make a proper decision, and we know everything, so we'll make that decision for you." -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john ^^^^ note new path-------------||
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/25/85)
In article <2232@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >>WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed >>in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the >>government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after >>seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, >>mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak >>for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful >>men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has >>ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) In article <4102@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> quint@topaz.UUCP (Amqueue) responds: > I know nothing about Jewish law, but I do know something about general >history, being in a Medeival Recreation Group... The more probable reason >that MEN outlawed rape was because > >a) when done to a virgin, it decreased the girl's value on the >marriage market, and so the girl would have to have a larger dower, >or would fetch a lower bride-price (depending on the culture) > >b) since there were no common contraceptives... >the woman was most >likely to get pregnant, and there would be a mouth to feed that would >be useless... >And it obviously proved the woman was a slut, >cause what man would do that without provocation.... > >So while Im sure there were men who took into consideration the >things mentioned by Matt, I think it was mostly cause Rape was >'damaging the merchandise'; women were considered property till a >depressingly long time into this century... In article <1924@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) responds: >(Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt? Respecting the rights of >women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-) >The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the >women. Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason. >The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was >either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property"). Was love invented in the 20th century or something? Maybe I'm too optimistic but I find it hard to believe that the primary reason men outlawed rape was to protect their pocketbook, their "merchandise", not to protect their families. I realize that women have legally been property for most of western history. I also realize the in midieval times life was cheap and people were barbaric. Still, the idea that primary reason rape was illegal was anything less then the desire to protect the people one loves from the suffering it caused is too bitter a pill for me to swallow. (Of course, I also have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to commit rape, engage in war, or kick their dog. (unless it shit on the carpet.:-)) As I said, maybe I'm too optimistic, but it seems to me that (Mr.? Ms.?) Amqueue and Mr. Rosen are too pessimistic. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/25/85)
> >>>Why is rape illegal? [PHILLIP W. SERVITA] > >> In case you were asking, Why do we abhor rape?, I don't think this has a > >> direct answer. Being raped often ruins a woman's life. At least it has > >> a profound negative effect on the rest of it. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] > > > Yup. And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to > > heavy punishment. WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed > > in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the > > government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after > > seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, > > mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak > > for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful > > men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has > > ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) > (Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt? Respecting the rights of > women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-) > [R. ROSEN] If not wanting wives, sisters, mothers and daughters to suffer is feminism, then even Matt Rosenblatt is feminist, much less the Jewish law. Kind of drains a lot of meaning from the word, no? > The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the > women. Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason. > The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was > either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property"). Thus I disagree with > both RosenTHAL and RosenBLATT here. [R. ROSEN] How does Mr. Rosen know what the "underlying reason" behind English common law or Jewish religious law was? > > Now -- if Mr. Servita has some sort of analogy with anti-abortion laws > > in mind, let him make it. It ought to be apparent from the preceding > > paragraph just what sort of analogy Matt Rosenblatt would make. > > [M. ROSENBLATT] > But there is in fact no place for such an analogy, since the original > premise is blatantly false. [R. ROSEN] Mr. Servita asked a simple question. He hasn't made any analogy yet, let alone stated a premise. Let's wait until we hear his analogy and his premises before calling anything blatantly false. > I find it quaint that an anti-feminist like > Matt would claim that rape was originally illegal out of respect for > women's rights to make his point. [R. ROSEN] Yup. Out of respect for women's rights not to suffer rape. > You still haven't answered that woman's > questions (and mine) about what is so heinous about things like feminism. > You asserted this is though it were obvious, and left us all hanging. > We're all waiting on the edge of our seats... [R. ROSEN] Keep waiting. Any woman who asked about feminism has been answered by private mail -- and they turned out not to be radicals like Andrea Dworkin with her absolute-equal-rights principle. Discussions about feminism belong in net.men, which does not exist, or in private mail. Only where feminism is used in support of abortion on demand will we see Matt Rosenblatt attacking it in net.abortion. -- Matt Rosenblatt
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/28/85)
In article <679@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: > >Was love invented in the 20th century or something? >Maybe I'm too optimistic but I find it hard to believe >that the primary reason men outlawed rape was to protect >their pocketbook, their "merchandise", not to protect >their families. > >siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk Love as a basis for marriage is pretty much a modern concept. In non-industrial societies it appears that arranged marriages are the norm. They certainly were the norm in this country a couple hundred years ago. I agree that in our perspective it seems like a terrible system, but that can't change the facts. You are too optimistic.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
>>> Yup. And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to >>> heavy punishment. WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed >>> in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the >>> government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after >>> seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, >>> mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak >>> for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful >>> men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has >>> ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) [ROSENBLATT] >>(Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt? Respecting the rights of >>women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-) >>[R. ROSEN] > If not wanting wives, sisters, mothers and daughters to suffer is feminism, > then even Matt Rosenblatt is feminist, much less the Jewish law. Kind of > drains a lot of meaning from the word, no? [ROSENBLATT] If only this was the truth behind the reasoning for these laws and not just a coverup assertion on Matt's part. A good look at history tells us otherwise. >> The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the >> women. Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason. >> The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was >> either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property"). Thus I disagree with >> both RosenTHAL and RosenBLATT here. [R. ROSEN] > How does Mr. Rosen know what the "underlying reason" behind English common > law or Jewish religious law was? The same way you do. Only I don't base my opinions on other presumptions that I hold to "get" things I like. Odd that YOU can assert your choice of underlying reason, but I am subject to a bizarre line of questioning when I state mine. >>> Now -- if Mr. Servita has some sort of analogy with anti-abortion laws >>> in mind, let him make it. It ought to be apparent from the preceding >>> paragraph just what sort of analogy Matt Rosenblatt would make. >>> [M. ROSENBLATT] >>But there is in fact no place for such an analogy, since the original >>premise is blatantly false. [R. ROSEN] > Mr. Servita asked a simple question. He hasn't made any analogy yet, > let alone stated a premise. Let's wait until we hear his analogy > and his premises before calling anything blatantly false. I was talking about YOUR analogy, that you stated yourself was so very apparent. >> You still haven't answered that woman's >> questions (and mine) about what is so heinous about things like feminism. >> You asserted this is though it were obvious, and left us all hanging. >> We're all waiting on the edge of our seats... [R. ROSEN] > Keep waiting. Any woman who asked about feminism has been answered > by private mail -- and they turned out not to be radicals like Andrea > Dworkin with her absolute-equal-rights principle. Gosh! What horrible "radicals"! Like those "negroes" who insisted on absolute equal rights for black people, eh, Matt? Anything you don't like, poof, it's bad, like magic? Amazing! (Equally amazing that you didn't let us ALL in (*I* asked the question, too; sounds like a good deal of general public interest...) >> Discussions about >> feminism belong in net.men, which does not exist, or in private mail. Why not net.women? (Oh, I'm sorry, to acknowledge net.women is to be a dreadful feminist, which Matt would NEVER do. This really stupid assertion (there's no other word for it) is equivalent to asserting that civil rights of minorities should only be discussed in net.roots.caucasian! > Only where feminism is used in support of abortion on demand will > we see Matt Rosenblatt attacking it in net.abortion. Da! Da-da-daaaaaaaa! The white (male) knight comes to the rescue! Amazing method of reasoning: don't bother trying to dispute the veracity of the notion of feminism itself---if it's used as support for abortion, attack it! GNARL! GNARL!! -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/04/85)
>> How does Mr. Rosen know what the "underlying reason" behind English >> common law or Jewish religious law was? [MATT ROSENBLATT] > The same way you do. Only I don't base my opinions on other presumptions > that I hold to "get" things I like. Odd that YOU can assert your choice of > underlying reason, but I am subject to a bizarre line of questioning when I > state mine. [RICH ROSEN] I'm sorry I didn't quote any source. Since Mr. Rosen learned about the reasons behind English common law the same way I did, he probably remembers reading Bracton, Coke, Blackstone and Pollock & Maitland when he was studying Criminal Law back in law school. In Bracton's time, SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE MY TIME, it was illegal to rape "matrons, nuns, widows, concubines and even prostitutes" -- hardly a law desiged to protect men's property rights in virgins! Moreover, after a rapist (like any other felon in Bracton's time) was put to death, his land and money were forfeited -- not to the woman's father, but to the woman herself -- hardly a vindication of any man's property rights. As far as the Jewish religious law goes, a good indication of the Divine intent behind the prohibition of rape comes from Deuteronomy 22:25-27: (25) But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man take hold of her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die. (26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field; the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. Now, if "this matter" is "as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him," G-d is saying that rape is bad for the same reason that murder is bad. That sounds more like "rape is bad because it hurts people" than "rape is bad because it violates the property rights of women's 'owners' ". -- Matt Rosenblatt