From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rape (what else?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:59:37 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Jul21.143840.22127@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:

> 
> 1) sexual conduct (any kind of actual sex) or contact (sexual touching)
> 2) the person who submits to sex
>   a) can not give informed consent or is in an intrinsically coercive
> 	environment
> or
>   b) is forced by force, threat of force or "coercion which would prevent
> 	resistance by of a person of ordinary resolution."
> 
>>Hypo #1. They go into his place, sit on the couch, and he is on top of her.
>>He unbuttons her shirt and lays it open. In a trembling voice she
>>says a faint 'No.' When he continues, she closes her eyes and tries to imagine
>>she is somewhere else.
> 
> 2b?  no, I don't think so.

Why not. Are you saying no reasonable woman could reach this conclusion?
Any women care to differ?

> 
>>Hypo #2. They go into his place and sit on the couch. He pushes himself on top
>>of her. She pushes her crotch to meet his groin and rubs into it. She grabs his
>>hands with hers and pulls them back onto the couch so he is pinning her. "What
>>are you doing?" she asks, "Raping me?"
> 
> 2b?  Still not, I think.

No, definetly not. Her actions form a clear consent. End of checklist.

> 
>>As for me, I would say that where a man knows, or should know, that a woman
>>is not consensual to sexual activity, he has committed rape. I would hope that
>>the wait-in-the-bushes rapist gets a longer sentence, unless the man has
>>committed a series of date-rapes, in which cases, punish both the same to
>>discourage both.
> 
> What matters to me (and seeming to the laws of the state of Ohio) is the
> degree of violence or coercion or impossibility of consent, 
> not the prior acquaintance of the parties involved.  Consent or lack thereof 
> is important to my moral judgements but I think fortunately not to the law 
> as proof or disproof of consent is not easy.  I rather think that the above 
> criteria are better.
> 
> Hypo 1) A man and a woman meet in a bar, she consents to drive him home.
> Halfway there he insists he has to urinate right now.  They stop at a
> deserted part of the road, he reaches accross and takes the car keys,
> explaining that last time this happened "she drove off and left me".
> Upon returning from urination his penis is out and he says "I have your
> keys, lady, and if you don't get out of that car right now and suck me
> off as if you really want it you, at least will be here still tomorrow
> morning."  He is physically significantly stronger than she.  It is
> midnight, no cars are around and there is no indication anyone is
> within hearing distance.  He thrusts his closed fist into his other palm.  
> There is no car phone and she has no gun or aid for self defense.
> She offers neither physical nor verbal resistance but gets out of the car, 
> says "Yes, yes please thrust your great big beautiful cock down my willing 
> throat" and he does so.
> 
> Rape.

Sure. His threat made her consent unlikely. Of course. The sure cure to the
whole problem involves a simple act of bringing her teeth together HARD.

Reminds me of a story I hear on the news of a woman who bit her attacker's
tongue off. Serves him right.

DC

Newsgroups: talk.rape