Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site udenva.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!udenva!ttorgers
From: ttorgers@udenva.UUCP (Troy Torgerson)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re RAPE, not Women/men and the consumption of toilet paper
Message-ID: <739@udenva.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 15:06:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: udenva.739
Posted: Wed Jul  3 15:06:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 03:41:40 EDT
References: <464@ttidcc.UUCP> <465@gitpyr.UUCP> <2345@topaz.ARPA> <>
Reply-To: ttorgers@udenva.UUCP (Troy Torgerson)
Organization: U of Denver
Lines: 57

In article <> roy@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy Mongiovi) writes:
>
>My credibility has been gone for years, why else would I be posting to this
>ridiculous female-chauvinist (to coin a phrase) newsgroup?  In the past I have
>been told (by this very newsgroup) that I cannot call a female a "girl" even
>though I find that term more attractive than "woman" because the female I
>call a girl might be offended and cannot take the time to realize that I am
>not being condescending about it.  Fine.  The moral of that story is that I
>am supposed to curb my speech because of the way other people might interpret
>it.  Now you turn right around and say that it isn't the woman's fault if a
>man misinterprets the way she dresses.  Am I the only one in the world that
>this seems inconsistant to?
>

You people are missing the point of all this!!  The point is (at least
*I* think it is :-), that women can where "provocative" or "nice"
clothing that makes them look good, whether they are looking to impress
someone or just because it makes them feel good, but this doesn't give
men the right to touch her.  Men should ask, not take.  (<-- there it is,
the point :-)) 

>When I go walking the streets of Atlanta at 11pm, I DO NOT dress up in my best
>clothes because that is a sign to muggers that I'm a good choice for a roll.
>Ignoring the fact that it is wrong for him to mug me, it is STUPID for me to
>dress in a fashion that invites a mugging.  The fact that I am more comfortable
>in those clothes has nothing to do with it.  Rape may be absolutely the worst
>crime on the earth (and you won't hear me argue about that), but if the woman
>dresses in a fashion that broadcasts that fact that she is desirable, she at
>least should accept that she attracted the rape by her manner of dress.  Your
>life is yours to live as you see fit, but if you play with knives you will get
>cut.
>-- 
>Roy J. Mongiovi.	Office of Computing Services.		User Services.

Roy, you are missing the point here too!  From all I heard and read from 
various sources, the large majority of rapes occur to people that couldn't
(or wouldn't) be dressing in provacative clothes.  Take for example
the 70,80,90 year old women who get raped, or even the 6 month old babies
or children (especially the young ones). . .  I don't care if they are 
naked, there is nothing provacative about them.  Maybe I'm getting back to
the argument (fact?) that rape is a crime of violence, and not carbonated
hormones.  
And no, the woman *doesn't* have to accept the "fact" that she atracted the
rape by her manner of dress.  I have just recently graduated from the
University of Denver and there are a lot of very pretty women around campus
who on occasion wear things that give you eye strain.  In the four years
of being on campus, I don't recall one single incident of rape.   Even
if I forgot (I don't forget things that easy), there weren't enough to
be a problem.  This neighborhood isn't the lowest in crime rates either
(I do recall a couple incidences of flashers, tho), so that isn't the issue.

It seems to me that people are getting cut because others are playing with
knives. . . .  


			Troy Torgerson
			udenva!ttorgers