From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:20:49 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Oct10.011806.14311@latcs1.lat.oz.au> woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>>   Do we really suggest that banks are "financially provocative" and should
>>>take responsibility for armed robbery because of all that money they keep
>>>there?!?
>>	To use your analogy.  If banks had G-string walls and kept their
>>assets all sitting there in plain site -- 1000's of stacks of money just
>>sitting there out in the open for the taking, then -- yes, I would
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>say they are financially provocative.
>
>   But listen to the language you're using! Are you really saying that
---
	The language is quite apt for those wishing to take that which they
are not invited to take.  


>   Even with the two examples you give, the male who was mugged will
>probably we told that they were pretty stupid, but the trial will not
>centre on their attire & behaviour. 
---
	If the attire and behaviour are relevant to his getting mugged,
it probably would.  In the case of the woman, if she displays her
sexual assets, it is relevant.  If the man took no precautions to
protect himself or his money, he would get little sympathy.  If he
walked down the street in a G-String, with 100's hanging out of his
string and got mugged you can be sure the trial *would* center on
his behaviour -- and he would probably be laughed out of the
courtroom -- at best the offender would probably get a reduced
sentence.


>   A personal prejudice perhaps, but I would also regard being mugged of
>even hundreds of dollars to be less an invasion & violation than even
>one "itty bitty" rape.
---
	Fine -- then make it 1000 dollar bills, or million.  If you think it
is equivalent to several million getting stolen, lets use that as 
the example, since the jury would probably wonder, in that situation why
you had not had an armored-car to carry the money in!  


>   I begin with the axiom that we are not responsible for the unreasonable-
>ness of others. An example I used recently in email - if someone points
>a gun at me at fires, does it then become my responsibility to get out of
>the way of the bullet?!?
---
	If you want to live -- it is.  We are not talking about who is
responsible -- we are talking about common sense and taking responsibility
for your own part in things.  Haven't you ever wondered why some women
have been raped *many* times (at different times), but others have been
raped zero?  There is a large amount of evidence that women can take
measures to protect themselves and avoid dangerous situations.  This
doesn't excuse illegal behavior, but it does point toward the idea
of personal responsibility in those illegal incidents.

	
>   But all I hear here is "come on, it will happen, and if you know
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it will happen and it happens to you anyway, well, it's *your* fault".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-----
	Who is saying here that rape is inevitable?  Also, 'fault' implies
blame.  It is more accurate to talk of one's own responsibility in
what happens to them in their life.  To do otherwise is to live
life as a victim -- helpless and powerless.


>   There is a societal sanctioning of sexual violence that is just not
>made for any other sort of crime. Here in Australia, you will be sent
>to prison for more years for burning down a hedge than for raping someone.
>What sort of message is that?
---
	How do those sentences compare to other personal assault crimes?  Perhaps
it is that property in general is more valued than people?


-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell