Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!greenber From: greenber@acf4.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: rape and violence Message-ID: <10400010@acf4.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 13:54:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.10400010 Posted: Fri Sep 21 13:54:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 02:30:26 EDT References: <3029@hlexa.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 33 Nf-ID: #R:hlexa:-302900:acf4:10400010:000:1143 Nf-From: acf4!greenber Sep 21 13:54:00 1984 <> An interesting thought (perhaps!). Apparently the woman in the New Bedford rape incident willingly had sex with SOME of the men. And MAY have been raped by some of the men. Whether this is true or not is not the issue. Consider the following scenario: A woman goes into a bar. Gets a little drunk, and decides to have sex with a number of men. She has sex with perhaps the first and second man. No rape has been committed. Whilst the third man is having intercourse with her she changes her mind. She demands that the man cease. He doesn't. He is in the middle of intercourse, and (perhaps for those male animailistic reasons!) opts to continue. Has she been raped? Does the man have any rights. He is sexually aroused, and "merely" because the woman has decided to stop, must he??? If he does not stop, then he is having sex with the women "against her will" (a common definition of rape). But she did initiate the action. Because she changes her mind ar any time she wants to, does that define rape? I'm confused. What are the man's rights here? Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----