HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt8834a@prism.gatech.EDU (Cott Lang)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:19:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Dec16.204415.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>>    So? Unless you want to start up the usual "Can prostitutes consent"
>> thread, what is the point?

>The point is that the prostitute didn't agree to sex-for-free.

She still agree to sex, so it isn't rape.  You could call it theft
of services, I suppose <smirk>.  I guess she could sue him, but that's
about it.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tie a yellow ribbon around ....                | CS Major, Georgia Tech
                     ....  Jane Fonda's neck.  | (Affectionately known as 
WARNING: My messages are offensive to morons!  |          HELL!)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu (Gary T. McGee)
Subject: Man rapes Man
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:07:42 GMT

I was thinking the other day about the various twists and turns concerning rape
and the prosecution of rapists. I have a question that has probably been 
addressed before, but I wasn't around.

Does anyone know of a case where a man raped another man?

If so, please let me know the circumstances and how the case turned out.

Thanks

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: an2161@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Rape laws in Ontario
X-Anonymously-To: talk.rape
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:04:56 GMT

Being originally from Canada (Toronto, Ontario) and having just moved here a
few months ago, I thought I'd add an interesting observation about the new rape
laws in Ontario that came into effect about a year ago.  Please bear in mind
that this information is from memory, and may not be 100% correct, but...

1.  In Ontario, the current law states that the sexual history of the victim
    is generally excluded from being admissable as evidence.  Like many other
    things in Canadian law, however, the judge does have some discretion here.
    The guideline is something to the effect that this type of evidence can
    only be admitted if:

    1.  It tends to show some extraordinary circumstance the existence of
        which is essential to the defense of the accused

                                AND

    2.  The potential value to the defense (as decided by the judge, who
        hears the evidence in the absence of the jury) FAR outweighs the
        potential harm to the victim that the admission of the evidence can
        cause.

    For example, if the reason why a daughter has accused her father of rape
    is to get revenge on the father for punishing her for having intercourse
    with her brother, and in fact no rape by the father existed, the evidence
    of the daughter having had intercourse with the brother, and the father's
    punishment of the daughter for this MIGHT (at the discretion of the judge)
    be admitted.  "She slept with 17,504 other guys, so I thought she
    consented" would NOT be admitted.  This brings me to my next point.

The new laws have a very interesting test for consent.  The law does not allow
the accused to say that he/she thought that consent had been given.  The new
law requires that (to paraphrase)

    " An intelligent, uninterested third party, having regard and consideration
     for all of the facts and circumstances, would have believed that consent
     had been given."

So, it's no longer good enough to say that you believed consent was given.  The
judge then decides whether a third party in the situation at the time, and
having regard for all of the circumstances, would have believed that consent
had been given.  And, note that the law requires an intelligent third party, as
opposed to just any other individual.

These laws have made it much harder for rapists to get off on flimsy excuses,
slandering of the reputation of the victim is almost nonexistant, and the laws
are much tougher.  Good? I don't know.  A provocative couple of things to think
about? Definitely.

/Matthew
cravitma@student.msu.edu
College of Communication Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48825

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.041248.23074@sequent.com> huggett@sequent.com (Terri Huggett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.174618.2837@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>
[an example of rape charges brought by a prostitute.]

>>
>Not trying to pick on Dan here, because I think his heart is in the right
>place, in general, but. . .
>
>The vast majority of the cases involving prostitutes and johns are situations
>where the prostitute doesn't get paid or the john does something to which
>they did not agree for the price agreed (you don't want to think about what 
>that is and it frequently ends in not getting paid too).  In these 
>circumstances it is still extremely hard to get a conviction, (guess why!?) 
>Can you imagine how much harder it would be if it was extortion?
>
   Hate to break it to you, but:

1) Failing to pay a prostitute does not make it rape.
2) Failing to pay is not a crime or a tort.
3) Failing to pay in fact makes the transaction legal.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:42:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.175702.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.151525.10457@news.columbia.edu>, 
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>    Hate to break it to you, but:
>> 
>> 1) Failing to pay a prostitute does not make it rape.
>> 2) Failing to pay is not a crime or a tort.
>> 3) Failing to pay in fact makes the transaction legal.
>
>Hate to break it to you but:
>
>1) The lack of consent makes it rape.

   So? Unless you want to start up the usual "Can prostitutes consent"
thread, what is the point?

>2) The agreement to pay is what makes it illegal.  Those undercover cops don't
>have to wait until after the deed is done to do the bust.
>
    I never said they did. But they almost certainly need the act to start.
It is difficult to establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt without something
actually happening. The defense of "I wasn't going to go through with it." is
very strong.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Female Rapists
Date: 19 Dec 1992 11:43:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <jtamdor.723277857@vincent1.iastate.edu> jtamdor@iastate.edu (Jason T Amdor) writes:

->	Groth and Burgess find that there are three barriers that
->militate against men reporting sexual assault:
->	1) Societal beliefs that a man is EXPECTED to defend himself
->against female sexual assault,
->	2) The victim's fear that his own sexual preference may become
->suspect, and 
->	3) Telling is highly depressing...

I would think that they forget the most obvious thing that I've found when
discussing female active male passive (FaMp) rape -- the issue of arousal.

Male rapes female.  This, assuming 'standard' penile-vaginal intercourse,
involves him penetrating her.  She does not need to be lubricating for him
to do so (apparently quite often they are, but that's irrelevant).

For a woman to rape a male in the same for (penile-vaginal sex), he has to
get hard.  

Now, we all know that a man, if he doesn't want to, won't be hard.  If he
was hard, he must have wanted it, he must have been aroused.

(Yes, folks, that _was_ sarcasm).  

I think some other types of rape (such as broomstick up the ass) would
qualify more as assault by most straight men ...

-roy
-- 
Roy S. Rapoport     internet: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu      bitnet: rsrsoda@ucbocf
"What I used to think is me ... is just a faded memory ... " -NIN
DISCLAIMER:  I speak for the University of California at Berkeley.  Rrrright.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Female Rapists 
Originator: dash@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:01:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.213247.25396@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
.just a thought, wouldn't males like to be raped by women.  I mean how can you
.refuse an offer like that, unless it puts you on a very risky position like if
.the woman has aids or something.
.Keep in mind that a typical male wouldn't say that he was raped, instead he
.would say that he had sex with a "bitch".  sorry to use this terminology but
.that's exactly what my friends would say.
.Cp

>Walking down the street at night you're grabbed from behind and dragged
>into the depths of a dark alley.  You're confronted by a 300 lb. woman who
>hasn't bathed in at least a month, has a face like an unmade bed and
>breath that would stop a moose at 20 feet.  She puts a gun to your head, a
>straight razor to your crotch and says "Get it up or lose it!"

I just read the Omni article on rape by women that someone in this group
recommended.  In that article they said that just as with male rapists,
female rapists are often not people who "need to rape to get sex".  I.e.
they might not be 300lb, etc, but a physically attractive woman.  However
I think the mistake the guys who say "men want to be raped by women" are
making is that just because you might freely consent to sex with a given
woman doesn't mean you would want to be raped by her.

A rapist, almost by definition, works by instilling genuine fear in his/her
victim;  it isn't a game.  If you are really afraid--of being castrated,
or killed, or seriously injured--you aren't going to enjoy the experience
no matter how good looking the rapist is.  Don't mistake the fact that you
might enjoy *fantasizing* about rape with how you'd react to a real rape--
lots of people enjoy horror movies but few would enjoy actually participating
in the scenes depicted.

I do wonder, however, whether a man might be less likely to interpret a
given situation as date rape than a woman would be in the reverse situation.
Not that it's impossible for a woman to date rape a man, only that it is
less likely.

As far as HIV is concerned, female-to-male transmission seems less likely
than male-to-female transmission, so this might be one trauma more specific
to male-attacks-female rapes.  As is the risk of getting pregnant.
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 497-1629       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
WORK: (415) 725-3859       |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Re: Advice from my father
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:52:54 GMT

In article <19DEC199217325587@acad3.alaska.edu> ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A) writes:>
>I think Roy is a wonderful person even though I do not know him in the fact
>that he is open and honest.  I have lots of friends who are different from me
>and that does not make me love them any less.  I am neither into S&M or being a
>lesbian but I have friends who are.  But they know I love men to much to do
>that.  Because I was abused as a child does not make me hate men or others who
>do not think like I do.  I have grown stronger from my childhood but it is a
>hellava way to gain strength.

No, and I'm glad to hear it.....my abuse has not made me queer either...i am 
queer but that was true long before i was abused by men.  I have also been
abused by a lesbian lover of mine.  I am lesbian but knew so long before 
i was abused at age 15.  (just thought i'd clarify, i didn't say you were 
implying anything but i wanted to make sure others didn't read into tis
interchange in a weird way)
>
>I wish all a Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year.
>
And, I too wish you a happy holiday season (i'd wish a Merry Christmas but you
know....)  :)

>                        -Linda-
>

Carrie
From: mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu (Gary T. McGee)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: RE: Rape Reform Laws
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:44:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

It seems that my recent posting have caused a lot of discussion on different things. That is good. I took some advice and paid no attention to the flames that were sent my way.

Now, for me, I cannot see how a woman's sexual history has any bearing on a rape trial. Even if she is a prostitute. I have also read the various arguments and had to laugh. The one about the purse snatcher was especially amusing.

I realize that the reforms of which I spoke are in place in many states, but there are still many that do not have any such laws. I was trying to make note of that.

On a final note, let me encourage all of those who feel the need to send me flame mail to keep doing it. It makes me want to post hear all the more.


Gary
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu (Gary T. McGee)
Subject: RE: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 10:01:06 GMT

I belive that a good way to reform rape laws is to set precedents in court. This is unfortunately very hard as most lawyers will tell you.

A problem in the courtroom is that women generally have to take the stand and their sexual history comes up as evidence. I do not understand it. I think if rape was tried as a crime of violence and not a sex crime, then it would be less traumatic to the victim. The lives of victims of other crimes don't usually go on display.

I would like to see the day when a woman can testify without having her sexual history brought up. If we find a judge that will disallow that kind of questioning then we have our precedent. I hope it happens, but I fear that it won't.

On a personal note, I am sorry for what happened to you. I can't possibly know what you're feeling, but I have seen what it did to people close to me. I admire your courage.

Gary
From: peace@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Man rapes Man
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:34:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:mcgeegt.921215210742@eng.auburn.:-1170592051:cdp:1484100006:000:188
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!peace    Dec 16 13:34:00 1992


Don't you watch Geraldo, they did en entire show about male on male
rape it was quite sad.  The men tended to not report it and the ones 
that did were treated like crap.  Same old story.
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Female Rapists
Date: 11 Dec 92 10:50:27 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <1g1i0nINN2or@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, cpluis@cats.ucsc.edu (Mulatto)
writes:
>just a thought, wouldn't males like to be raped by women.  I mean how can you
>refuse an offer like that, unless it puts you on a very risky position like
>if the woman has aids or something.
>Keep in mind that a typical male wouldn't say that he was raped, instead he
>would say that he had sex with a "bitch".  sorry to use this terminology but
>that's exactly what my friends would say.

Shit.  This is *NOT* the case!!!!!

Men get raped by women.

It is *NOT* pleasant.

I have been raped.

I did *NOT* enjoy it.

How would you like to be forced to have sex when you didn't want to have it???


Krikket (a.k.a. Doug Krick)  ---  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us
#include<std.disclaimers>    ---  an294@anon.penet.fi

      Showing up is 88% of life and 98% of edcuation
           (41% of all statistics are worthless)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cs101e77@dcl-nxt11.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student)
Subject: hell yeah
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:07:06 GMT

Of course I would want to get raped.  How any man could turn down sex  
(unless it was an ugly bitch) I don't understand.  I'd want to fuck a  
chick if she asked me and if she was O.K.-looking, and any man who says  
otherwise is lying.  I'd love getting fucked forcefully by a female.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Subject: Re: Rape laws in Ontario
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:01:12 GMT

cravitma@student.msu.edu writes:

|> The new laws have a very interesting test for consent.  The law does not allow
|> the accused to say that he/she thought that consent had been given.  The new
|> law requires that (to paraphrase)
|> 
|>     " An intelligent, uninterested third party, having regard and consideration
|>      for all of the facts and circumstances, would have believed that consent
|>      had been given."
|> 
|> So, it's no longer good enough to say that you believed consent was given.  The
|> judge then decides whether a third party in the situation at the time, and
|> having regard for all of the circumstances, would have believed that consent
|> had been given.  And, note that the law requires an intelligent third party, as
|> opposed to just any other individual.

Two things to note:

1) The test is the 'reasonable' man test, not an 'intelligent' man test. That
may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction. It's not as high a
standard as you might think

2) Criminal and tortious aspects are examined differently. It's easy to be liable
in one sense and not in the other. So you can be guilty of the criminal act,
but not required to make reparation



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grey@bnr.ca			              I think I know enough of hate
greymouser			     	      To say that for destruction ice
my own opinions, not those of my employer     Is also great, and would suffice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:06:51 EST
From: <REB127@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: hell yeah

In article <BzBK03.9o8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cs101e77@dcl-nxt11.cso.uiuc.edu
(cs101 student) says:
>
>Of course I would want to get raped.  How any man could turn down sex
>(unless it was an ugly bitch) I don't understand.  I'd want to fuck a
>chick if she asked me and if she was O.K.-looking, and any man who says
>otherwise is lying.  I'd love getting fucked forcefully by a female.

 Please tell me this is sarcasm.  If it's not, I hope you plan to spend a
 little more time reading the posts here--not that we 'know it all' when it
 comes to rape, but you might get a few new perspectives on the subject.

                      --Russ
                        REB127@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Rape Law Reform
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:47:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.204415.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.154254.812@news.columbia.edu>, 
[Talking about rape in terms of prostitutes]

>>>
>>>Hate to break it to you but:
>>>
>>>1) The lack of consent makes it rape.
>> 
>>    So? Unless you want to start up the usual "Can prostitutes consent"
>> thread, what is the point?
>
>The point is that the prostitute didn't agree to sex-for-free.
>
    But legally noone can agree to sex-for-money, so this doesn't mean 
anything. 
    In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, if you fail to pay a prostitute,
is it rape? Wouldn't it rather be theft? Maybe only a civil tort? Wouldn't
the brothel have to sue you?

>>>2) The agreement to pay is what makes it illegal.  Those undercover cops don't
>>>have to wait until after the deed is done to do the bust.
>>>
>>     I never said they did. But they almost certainly need the act to start.
>> It is difficult to establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt without 
>> something actually happening. The defense of "I wasn't going to go through 
>> with it." is very strong.
>
>Wrong again.  The elements of the conviction are the prostitute naming the act
>and the price.  The act doesn't even have to start.  The money doesn't even
>have to be paid.
  
    Why am I wrong?  "I was joking." What proof will you have against this
if you don't have an act? "I wasn't going to take the money." What proof
against this without an exchange?
   I have seen twice, on those stupid cop/video shows, stings against
call girls. In both the detectives made a point of filming three things.
The girl naming a price for an act, an exchange of money, and the
beggining of a sexual act. A rock solid case.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Subject: RE: Rape Reform Laws
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:29:27 GMT


Since sawallcj@cnsvax.uwec.edu started this thread with their response to
having completed a paper on rape laws, perhaps they will (as DanZ suggested)
post it for discussion....

Gary T. McGee writes:
> Now, for me, I cannot see how a woman's sexual history has any bearing on a
> rape trial. Even if she is a prostitute. I have also read the various arguments
> and had to laugh. The one about the purse snatcher was especially amusing.

This may be hard to take, but it has exactly the same *possible* bearing as the
criminal history of the defendant:

Prosecution: They've committed X crime before, we claim they did so again
Defence:     They've consented to X before, we claim they did so again

Does the history affect the FACT of whether X was committed/consented? NO! Of
course not. Does it affect the probability? The courts give a qualified yes.
Qualified in that they can decide to admit or reject evidence. Why do you claim
this should change, apart from your statement 'you don't see it'?

And I'm serious about being interested in that paper.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grey@bnr.ca			              I think I know enough of hate
greymouser			     	      To say that for destruction ice
my own opinions, not those of my employer     Is also great, and would suffice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.rape