From: dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: My Young Friend Was "Date Raped"...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 00:10:05 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1dfpqgINN4ss@agate.berkeley.edu> uunet!infmx!hartman@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Hartman) writes:
>In article <1debifINNocj@agate.berkeley.edu> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>And if the perp outweighs the victim by a good 50 pounds and stays
>between the victim and the phone?

Then the perp is using physical force, at which point it becomes harassment.
It's still not rape until he actually *rapes* her, i.e., forces himself upon
her sexually.  That's why they call it rape, you see.

>Why is it exactly that you have
>no sympathy for someone in the victim's position?

I have no sympathy for the victim as you presented her because she's only
a victim in her own mind.  Look, you didn't present the perp as using any
force but stubbornness.  She asks him to leave, he refuses.  She still
has a lot of options besides going, "Oh, all *right*, I'll have sex with
you."  Like calling the police.  Like calling her friends.  The way you
presented it, though, all that happened was that one person was unable
to stand up to another person with more willpower.  That's *not* rape, and
it's very, very dangerous to call it rape, IMHO.

>Haven't you ever
>been pushed around by a bully?  Don't you remember how that felt?

Yes, I have been pushed around by a bully.  It's a humiliating experience,
but it's not a very good analogy, since the perp is only bullying the victim
mentally, not physically.  Now, if you want to claim that women aren't as
mentally strong as men . . . well, I think you'll have a lot more people
than just me disagreeing with you.

>That's why I think that the line is well placed.  That's where it
>stopped being consensual.  So what do _you_ call it when someone demands
>nonconsensual sexual favors under threat (express or implied) of violence?

But Robert, there were no threats!  None.  Go back and read your article.
Not once, not ever, does the perp say, "Have sex with me or I'll beat you
up."  I didn't even read any implied threats into the conversation, although
without body language or voice tonations that is a difficult thing to tell.
For instance, when the perp says, "I'm not leaving until you kiss me", it
could mean two very different things, depending on how it was said.

In fact, my fiance and I do this all the time.  After sex, she, affecting
great distress, might say something like, "Oh, God, how could you *do* that
to me?"  I might give an evil laugh, and say, "You are a slave to my desires!
You must submit!"  Just as often, the lines are reversed.  But if you read
the text without the laughing, and the smiles, and the snuggling, I bet you 
would be aghast at it.

>I'm deadly serious.  I'm asking you.  Fits of pique aside, what _do_ you
>call it?

I call it rape, but that's not what you were describing.

>>Women can only be equal when they are willing and able to stand up for
>>themselves at the necessary times.
>
>You know, I think that what we have here is a classic miscommunication
>about the nature of equality.  Unlike the impression that many women
>have, and that many feminist subscribe to, it is simply not the case
>that men are raised to believe that their equal place in society is a
>given.

I think we're beginning to agree.  I don't think this is complete, though.
Most women want to believe that their equal place in society *is* a given,
or it at least should be.  This is not the case, though, for men or women.
In a society of individuals, and individual freedom, every person has to
be responsible for guarding their own personal integrity.  I don't think
that it's society's place to do it for them, except in cases where someone
can't.

>And having
>earned his place by standing up for themselves against bullies, many men
>tend to be very jealous of granting equal stature to others who haven't
>done that yet.  No one had sympathy for them.  They had to "fight
>their own battles."  So why should they have sympathy for anyone else?

>From your tone, you don't seem to agree with this.  I do, and that's the
basic difference between the way we are seeing this.  If you won't stand
up for yourself, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.  Note again, however,
that this is miles apart from not being *able* to stand up for yourself.

>My sense of what feminism ultimately seeks, is for this "prerequisite
>of physical virility," or whatever you want to call it, to be lifted.

Physical virility is only part of it, and it is part of it only because
in youth there isn't much else to fall back on.  Once you become an adult,
however, things are changed.  Physical domination is, at least nominally,
frowned upon.

I should note at this time that when I was picked on by bullies, it was
usually because I had outperformed them -- or everybody -- that day in school.
My only response, and the correct one IMHO, was to do it again, the next
day.  Eventually, the bullying stops.

>Perhaps we need a misdemeanor rape for
>cases in which no explicit threats of violence are used.

Oh, what a great can of worms this would be!  I can see it now.  The following
lines would all be subject to rape charges:

    "Sleep with me, or I won't go out with you anymore."
    "If we don't have sex, my feelings are going to be really hurt."

And the list goes on and on.

>>Change the scenario from a sexual context to, say, buying a car, the car
>>buyer being the Victim.  The Victim eventually lets the Perp, or car salesman,
>>browbeat her into making a bad deal on a new car.  Does your opinion of
>>who is at fault change?
>
>My opinion stays the same.  I've walked out on more than one shark-type
>salesman.

What?  You mean that you weren't forced into buying a car?  That you actually
had a choice in the matter?  If you do have a choice, then how can it be the
car salesman's fault if you make the wrong choice?  The salesman, presumably,
doesn't have ESP, and can't force a decision on you.  Is it his fault if
he can talk faster than you can think?

>But
>this is more akin to the door-to-door salesman who just won't leave
>until you hand over your credit card.  YOu can't walk out because the
>salesman is already in your _home._

So what would you do in this circumstance?  Give the salesman your card?
I wouldn't, and I don't think you would, either -- you'd kick him bodily
out of your house.  Or if you couldn't, you'd get someone over to your
house to do it for you.

Is it wrong to hold women up to the same standard?  They are, after all,
equal.

Daniel Welch


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.