From: todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey)
Subject: Assumed guilty until proven innocent
Originator: todamhyp@hubert.cs.unlv.edu
Organization: University of Nevada at Las Vegas, College of Engineering
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:06:09 GMT


  
  	As I was working today, doing some OCR stuff, I ran across a word
  I was curious to look up in our ONLINE webster dictionary. The word is rape
  and needless to say I was a tad upset by the definition of this well used
  and accepted dictionary. The definition is as follows:
  ================================
  Webster Online Dictionary
  (at command prompt) webster [word to look up]
  ================================
  
  1rape \'ra^-p\ n
  [ME, fr. L rapa, rapum turnip, rape; akin to OHG ra^-ba turnip, rape]
  (14c)
  :a European herb (Brassica napus) of the mustard family grown as
       a forage crop for sheep and hogs and for its seeds which yield rape
       oil and are a bird food
  
  2rape vt  raped; rap-ing
  [ME rapen, fr. L rapere]
  (14c)
  1a archaic: to seize and take away by force
  1b: DESPOIL
  2: to commit rape on
  -- rap-er n
  -- rap-ist \'ra^--pest\ n
  
  3rape n
  (15c)
  1: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person
       by force
  2a: sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and
       chiefly by force or deception -- compare STATUTORY RAPE
  2b: unlawful sexual intercourse by force or threat other than by a
       man with a woman
  3: an outrageous violation
  
  4rape n
  [F ra^pe grape stalk]
  (1657)
  :grape pomace
  
  =====================================
  Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed., Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press
  located at:    info.rutgers.edu
  choose the Library option, then choose the reference option, the choose 
  dictionary
  ======================================
  
  /rape/1 <<reIp>> n. & v.
  
  n.
  1. [Law]
     a. the act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her
        will.
     b. forcible sodomy.
  2. (often foll. by "of") violent assault, forcible interference, violation.
  3. [poet.] carrying off (esp. of a woman) by force.
  4. an instance of rape.
  
  v.tr.
  1. commit rape on (a person, usu. a woman).
  2. violate, assault, pillage{new sense from OED, Suppl. Mar88}.
  3. [poet.] take by force.
  
  ME f. AF rap(er) f. L rapere seize
  
  /rape/2 <<reIp>> n.[Bot] a plant, Brassica napus, grown as food for sheep
  and for its seed, from which oil is madeBrassica napus. Also called
  /colza/, /cole/.
  
  =================
  Notice in definition 2a of "Webster". The definition assumes that rape is
  always against women. Rape, I believe, is non-censenting sexual intercourse. 
  It doesn't matter which sex the victim (except in court) is, but rather that
  a sexual event took place which was neither wanted nor agreed upon by both 
  parties. 
 
  At least the Oxford dictionary was a little less violent in the verb tense of
  rape, however, law the definition is quite clear: ...forcing a woman...
  
  I don't mean to insult people and I also realize that (my estimate) 95%
  of rape is commited by a man, but these men that perform these immoral
  crimes do not speak for the rest of society nor is he speaking for men
  in general. But over time with thousands of rape crimes, we (the human race)
  have learned that most are committed by men. With this in mind, does it give
  us the right to automatically assume that the man involved in the rape (if
  there is one) must be guilty. Of course not (in my opinion), but I have 
  friends that would think he's guilty just by looking at photo of the suspect
 in a local newspaper; "he looks like a rapist". Do we have the right to assume
 that a man is guilty of sexual harrassment because he is a man? Case in point
  eventhough this has been beaten to death, the confirmation of Judge Thomas.
  My friend never watched the CNN stuff nor did she read the papers, but this
  is a direct quote of her "....I don't care man...he looks guilty."
  
  I guess the problem is that people are afraid to look beyond what has
  happened in the past. Some people would probably prefer to look at the
  statistics rather than the facts; live in the past instead of present.
  Sounds like prejudism and discrimination. We wouldn't know anything
  about that, now would we?
  
  I have deep compassion for people of violent crimes, but my compassion
  for discrimination and predjudism amounts to a pile of cr*p. I am thankful
that I have not been involved with rape. I realize I don't know of the emotions
 of a victim of rape, but I do know what discrimination and predjudism is.
  
  I have no intention to agrue this article I have posted, although I
  probably will receive a lot of unwanted mail from various "hot-heads"
  that do not think things thru. My intention of this article is based
  on the same principle of internet and that is to promote information
  exchange and education. (Education is the key word)
  
  In my opinion, discrimination and prejudism, is pure ignorance.
  
  P.S. I realize my compostion of this letter is not the best in the world.

-- 
_D_I_S_C_L_A_I_M_E_R_: I can neither confirm nor deny any opinions
expressed in this article directly reflect my own personal or
political views and furthermore, if they did, I would not be at
liberty to yield such an explanation of these alleged opinions.
Newsgroups: soc.men