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  <----