From: woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:43:36 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>woodhous@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe P Woodhouse) writes:
>>   Even with the two examples you give, the male who was mugged will
>>probably be 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.

   Well, I'm no law student, I don't have umpteen million court transcripts
in front of me, but frankly I doubt it.


>In the case of the woman, if she displays her
>sexual assets, it is relevant.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   [unhappy] Ouch! This phrase makes me pretty uneasy too.

   I'm trying to explain to myself exactly why this is so. I think it's
basically because it turns women & their bodies into something that is
"ownable"...that's the sort of connotation I have from it, anyway.


>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.

   Again, I doubt it would be an extreme as you portray. I think there
would be a sense of "this man is a legitimate victim and we cannot insult
him by laughing at the crime". 


>>   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!  

   The issues are incommensurate.

   The "armoured car" analogy bothers me too. If you never go outside, you
won't have to worry about being run over by cars. That's what it's sounding
like to me.


>Haven't you ever wondered why some women
>have been raped *many* times (at different times), but others have been
>raped zero?

   I *really* don't like the sound of this!


>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.

   And this was exactly what was making me uncomfy when this discussion
began. I cannot agree with any part of this. Whatever your values, however
you arrive at this statement, this comes across as blaming the victim &
moving some of the responsibility from the perpetrator to the target.
And I happen to think that that's always a Bad Thing.


>	Who is saying here that rape is inevitable?  Also, 'fault' implies
>blame.

   Yes indeed! That's what I'm hearing, yes...


>>   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?

   Of course! Every legal system that I am aware of shares this view. Most
apparant exceptions I feel are a result of treating people as property, but
that's just an impression I've formed...


   I don't think we can meet on this issue. I'm sorry, it's probably quite
unfair of me, but I associate most of the arguments I've been hearing 
against me with the climate that allows these things to happen in the
first place. Why is this? Because it's what I hear the rapists and their
lawyers saying *all the time*. [shrug] (I am not accusing anyone of this,
just explaining where my connotations have come from...).

Joe.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory