samm (09/09/82)
I had stayed out of this controversy, partly because I had nothing I wanted to add, and partly because 'marys' happens to be my wife. However, I read a couple of articles that persuaded me that my profound wisdom was needed. Firstly, in response to ...mi-cec!rwg's nice distinction between 'rape' and 'statutory rape': (1) I have not seen it mentioned anywhere that the girl had expressed or implied consent (in fact, it appears otherwise); that being so, I fail to see the relevance of the actual statute under which Jo Jo was convicted and sent to jail by a judge and a jury which had all the evidence. (I also happen to think that the 'fiat' which makes it irrelevant to chatter about consent when you're talking about non-adults is a good idea; you could argue about the age limit a few years either way, but sex with a twelve-year-old ought to be illegal in any civilized society.) (2) The concern my wife expressed had little to do with whether or not JoJo was guilty of rape or 'something similar' - she had assumed there was little question about that, since he had been sentenced. She was voicing her objection to the way the legal system concerns itself with the welfare of the criminal, with no balancing concern for the victim(s). I share her indignation here. (3) The word 'rape' ought to make people scream for blood: it often doesn't becuse of the 'blame the victim' syndrome that we often fall into, to avoid worrying about very serious social problems. An example: when you read about a woman being raped in a lonely area at night, do you say to yourself, "What the hell was she doing there? She was asking for it". I can think of a few reasons she had to be there, but that's hardly the point, is it? No one asks to be raped (not really). Secondly, regarding Lew Mammel's 'Freudian' comment, and the very emotional responses it received: (1) I think I understand what Lew was trying to say, though he may now wish he'd said it differently. I also feel close to the emotion of the person who referred to that as BS. I don't feel that I could say more than this without stirring up a real hornet's nest, even if I could find the right words to express such complex, emotional feelings. (2) I find that I agree strongly with Robert Duncan - emotion does have a place, but it must be tempered with reason if we are to have any kind of useful discussion. (By the way, as far as I know, not all of Carl Sagan's speculations in 'The Dragons of Eden' are widely accepted by biologists. However, the basic idea of the conflict between atavistic and civilized behavior is an appealingly convincing one. Any comments, Lew?) I hope I've contributed usefully to this discussion, and wouldn't mind seeing it continue, in a serious vein. Chanchal Samanta BTL Neptune NJ