From: bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Rape vs. Seduction
Date: 19 Nov 1992 00:43:59 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov12.000442.14119@informix.com> 
uunet!infmx!hartman@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Hartman) writes in reply to me:
>>The usual meaning of 'rape' implies
>>violence, or at least the serious threat of violence.  I would not call
>>an incident 'rape' unless violence was present.
>
>Do you mean "serious," or do you mean "explicit?"   If you mean
>"explicit," then the issue of date rape is more tidy.  If the threat
>is implicit or inferred but still present, what then?

I mean serious.  There has to be reasonable belief of bodily harm.  Whether
it is explicit is not important for considering the crime, but
it might be very important in proving guilt in court.  One would have to
establish that the threat was intended.  One could not find someone
guilty of rape just because somebody *thought* the perpetrator might
become violent.

>>There is a perfectly good word to denote the sorts of scenarios that
>>Robert et al.  have been discussing: 'seduction'.
>
>Oh no.   That's not seduction in my book.  Seduction is using
>pleasure or promises of pleasure to get a person to comply with
>one's wishes.  "I'm not leaving until you do, is certainly not
>that."

Seduction means inducing someone to have sex.  Whether it is done by
charm and wine, or whining and persistence doesn't matter.  Some people
have more finesse than others.  The essential point is that a "no" is
turned into a "yes".  Consent is obtained by devious means, consent
which may be reluctant, and later regretted.  But there is consent
nevertheless.  If consent is not granted, then it is rape.

>>If we distinguish between armed robbers and unscrupulous salesmen, then
>>we should distinguish between rape and seduction.
>
>What about the robber who invades your house but doesn't really have a gun?
>Is that not still an invasion and a robbery?

That is still robbery.  But if someone comes into my house and asks for
money and refuses to leave until I give him some, but makes no attempt
to take it from me forcefully--then that is not robbery.  I may give him
money just so that he will leave me alone.  But that is my choice.
If he threatens me with a weapon, then it is robbery.  But if I just
*think* he *may* have a weapon, then that is my problem.  I could have
the fellow charged with trespassing and harassment, but not with robbery.

>>Robert:>Perhaps we need a misdemeanor rape for
>>>cases in which no explicit threats of violence are used.
>>Perhaps the problem is that there is no law against seduction (to my
>knowledge).  Maybe there ought to be.
>
>Hmmm.  At this point I think we're mincing words.  If you want to
>call it seduction and make it a misdemeanor, fine.

I am not sure I want to make it just a misdemeanor.  Fraud is a felony.
Why shouldn't it be the same for getting sexual favours by false
pretenses?  Or do we value money more than love?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
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.