Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekla.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!teklds!dadla!tekla!brianc From: brianc@tekla.UUCP (Brian Conley) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Make vs. Rape Message-ID: <301@tekla.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 17:56:54 EDT Article-I.D.: tekla.301 Posted: Wed Aug 7 17:56:54 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 00:34:30 EDT References: <933@druxo.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 53 > Me: > ... Will *SOMEBODY* please explain what it is that I'm > missing in this discussion? Why is my contention that "any force used to > coerce someone to 'have sex' constitutes rape" being interpreted as the > opposite? > > Nancy Parsons > AT&T ISL > ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Before I begin let me try to clarify past responses: 1) I agree with you that coercing someone to have sex is rape. 2) Reading the original writer's response to your (Nancy's) question (which I read after I wrote my response) has caused me to take another look at this question. 3) Chris' commentary (which I assume was directed at me in particular and future respondents in general) to "think before writing", caused me to think even more on the question. so here goes... Although Webster defines rape as "unlawful sexual intercourse by force or threat . . . " it does not say whether this force or threat must be physical or can be any other form of trauma. Obviously this discussion is getting away form the subject of violent rape, which I'll call obvious rape, and into another form of rape, latent rape or "DATE RAPE". The substance of the original writer's answer to Nancy's question was that "making someone have sex with you" is not coercion but "persuasion" (whether he included pleading, begging, whimpering, etc. I do not remember.). Thus it is RAPE ONLY if you use a "sales technique" which YOU find "morally objectionable". Of course there ARE people who believe that using force as a method of persuasion is NOT morally objectionable. As a non sexual example of this idea, consider home computers. How many people do you know who were "persuaded" to buy a home computer to help educate their child and prevent the child from being "illiterate of technology"? The premis here is that if you don't buy this thing, YOU will be hurting YOUR child! Is this a threat? Is it coercion? Or is it persuasion? Personally, I don't think this is a threat or coercion, just absurd logic and an immoral sales tactic. However, many people see nothing wrong with this technique. I hope this has cleared up some of the confusion on this, although I think that I've probably just reopened a can of worms and offended many people. Please also remember that this is MY ANALYSIS of SOMEONE ELSES REPLY, and I may have misinterpreted the reply.