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