Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!pwk From: pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Something NEW... Message-ID: <679@ccice2.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 18:18:35 EST Article-I.D.: ccice2.679 Posted: Thu Oct 24 18:18:35 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 05:44:58 EST References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) Distribution: net Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY Lines: 66 In article <2232@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >>WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed >>in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the >>government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after >>seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, >>mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak >>for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful >>men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has >>ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) In article <4102@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> quint@topaz.UUCP (Amqueue) responds: > I know nothing about Jewish law, but I do know something about general >history, being in a Medeival Recreation Group... The more probable reason >that MEN outlawed rape was because > >a) when done to a virgin, it decreased the girl's value on the >marriage market, and so the girl would have to have a larger dower, >or would fetch a lower bride-price (depending on the culture) > >b) since there were no common contraceptives... >the woman was most >likely to get pregnant, and there would be a mouth to feed that would >be useless... >And it obviously proved the woman was a slut, >cause what man would do that without provocation.... > >So while Im sure there were men who took into consideration the >things mentioned by Matt, I think it was mostly cause Rape was >'damaging the merchandise'; women were considered property till a >depressingly long time into this century... In article <1924@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) responds: >(Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt? Respecting the rights of >women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-) >The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the >women. Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason. >The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was >either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property"). Was love invented in the 20th century or something? Maybe I'm too optimistic but I find it hard to believe that the primary reason men outlawed rape was to protect their pocketbook, their "merchandise", not to protect their families. I realize that women have legally been property for most of western history. I also realize the in midieval times life was cheap and people were barbaric. Still, the idea that primary reason rape was illegal was anything less then the desire to protect the people one loves from the suffering it caused is too bitter a pill for me to swallow. (Of course, I also have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to commit rape, engage in war, or kick their dog. (unless it shit on the carpet.:-)) As I said, maybe I'm too optimistic, but it seems to me that (Mr.? Ms.?) Amqueue and Mr. Rosen are too pessimistic. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk