From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:21:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct5.143008.10158@latcs1.lat.oz.au> 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?!?

Banks take incredible caution in displaying said money. There are
armored cars, TV cameras, exploding money. To prevent crime from
inside the bank, backgound checks and audits, and audits of the
auditors to prevent the theft.

When an armored car reaches a point where money is tranfered usually
the guard will have his gun drawn and pointed down as he carries the
cash in or out.

This does not stop robbery, it deals with the situation with a view
to current human behavior regarding money.

A guard who fails in his vigalence is fired, or killed by criminals.

Yes, criminals should be apprehended, prosecuted, and sentenced with
an eye towards exempliary prevention. I'm showing my conservativism
when I state that if one uses a gun in a crime, that there should be
a minimum 20 year sentence, no questions, no parole, no extenuating
cercumstances (current first time offences may get 5-10). I think
rapist should be put away for long time, how long is definately
dependent on the viciousness of the assault, starting at 5 years.

I do not beleive in a 'basically good human soul, twisted by fate to
evil". There are too many success stories where individuals who had
horrible childhoods, because contributors to societal good. I think
there is an evil(very societally defined in many cases) which is in
most humans. If you wish to transcend societal definition call this
evil, 'going against convention'. In the case of the 'the peace
movement' the evil is calling attention to the barbarity of warface.
In the case of the criminal, the evil is 'doing damage to other
individuals in the society'.

Now for a different analogy. I walk into a gay bathhouse(a vanishing
spicies) and wear a sexually provocative pair of underwear. I'm
'assaulted' by a rather forceful individual who has bad breath and
smells like he hasn't bathed in years. I'm offended that of all the
nice fellows, this is the one who sees fit to 'respond' to my
provocative attire. I fight but to no avail, no K-Y jell, and my ass
is sort as hell. Well, my analysis requires that I personally take
responsibility for 1) being there 2) being provocative 3) accept that
individuals not to my liking may respond. After the assualt I can 1)
go to the police and file charges that this individuals exceded the
bounds of the law and should be charged with assault; 2) accept the
assualt as one of the hazards of being in a place where I can not
absolutely control the outcome of every contingency. These are not
mutually exclusive either.


Now, as I file my assualt charge, the police are definately going to
question the 'victim'. They will ask if I 'wanted to be assaulted'
and a whole line on the 'provocativeness' of my behavior. On each
question, I would have to answer 'yes I was being sexuall
provocative', until Mr Badbreath showed up, he just didn't take 'No
to mean NO!'.

I'm sure that few will agree to my scenarios. This is unfortunate. I
feel that liberty/freedom has it's risks and I as an adult aware of
the potentially dangerous consequences should be allowed the
freedome of choice. But I prefer the risks of freedom and
responsibility to the prison of state regulation.

I do not want a cop on every corner, and given human behavior that
is what is required to inforce 'No means No'.

The 'No means No' behavior pattern starts much earlier than
adulthood. "No Johnny you can't treat others like objects" begins at
birth, not in some 'consciousness raising class at 18'. "No Johnny
if you hurt others you will be hurt your self" is the correct
response to childish agression. The parental attitude that 'well
boys will be boys' and encourages fights for the sake of 'showing
one's eventual manhood', is a contributor to the adult male attitude
that all is won by combat.



-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu