Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
From: ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Is this rape?
Message-ID: <2238@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 20:56:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.2238
Posted: Tue Oct 16 20:56:20 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 06:40:44 EDT
References: <10400011@acf4.UUCP> <332@uwmacc.UUCP> <735@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 71

> 
> 
> >>>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