Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape and violence
Message-ID: <198@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 22:43:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.198
Posted: Thu Oct 18 22:43:36 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 13:47:44 EDT
References: <3029@hlexa.UUCP> <10400010@acf4.UUCP> <385@pucc-k> <1733@sun.uucp> <451@pucc-k>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 46

If a woman is induced through violent means to engage in sex, I think we're
all agreed that this is rape.

If a woman is threatened with violence in order to induce to have sex, I think
we're still agreed that this, too, is rape.

If a woman FEELS threatened that someone would threaten or use violence on her
if she refused to have sex, is it rape (if she consents to have sex in order
to, from her perspective, save her neck)?

1.  It could be a big burly male (but really a nice guy and not a "macho
	asshole") approached her, and she was afraid that he might be the type
	who *would* threaten/attack her.  In reality, he was just a big lug
	who liked her, who would have politely understood if she had said no.

2.  It could be any type of male who really *would* use violence to induce the
	woman to have sex, and knows that the woman would be too frightened to
	say no.  The woman would "consent" unwillingly, but not due to DIRECT
	threats of violence.

In case 1, it's not rape, at least not on the part of the man involved.  What
it is is yet another sad case of miscommunication and misinterpretation between
human beings.  (The woman's body *was* violated, in that she had sex against
her will, but the man was not "at fault".)

In case 2, in my book, it's just as much rape as in the original examples from
the beginning of this article involving direct violence or threatened violence.
But would the man in case 2 get convicted?  Probably not.  Because (in my
understanding) rape involves violence or threats of violence, and there simply
would be NO LEGAL PROOF of this.  This doesn't mean it's not wrong; it's no
better than the other examples of rape.  Unfortunately, it would probably not
get a conviction.

What's interesting is that I know that there are several people on the net
(readers of this newsgroup, I believe) who firmly believe that there is NO
SUCH THING as psychological violence of this kind.  "No one can force you
to do something you don't want to do against your will without physical
violence."  I wonder why these people haven't stepped forward to proclaim:
"A woman cannot be forced to have sex against her will unless violence or
threats of violence are applied."  I wonder what the many women who are stuck
in relationships where intimidation of that nature is a daily fact of life
might think of that.  I digress...
-- 
WHAT IS YOUR NAME?			Rich Rosen
WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS?		pyuxd!rlr
WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA?		I don't know that ...  ARGHHHHHHHH!