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!