From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: <None>
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:45:13 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <SYNTH.92Jul30135630@deepthought.unm.edu>, synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:

> 
> 
> [ WARNING:  This post contains some descriptions that may be of a
> sensitive nature to some of the readership.  Please hit 'n' now. ]
> 
>> ...up above is your first example.  Here's another:  "God would I love
>> to shove my DICK in her mouth --" -- this in regard to someone they
>> barely know.  Now tell me:  do you honestly think there is nothing in
>> the above that suggests dominance or force? 
> 
> Laz> It's suggested, but to blow up that suggestion into a full-blown
> Laz> rape fantasy requires a leap of logic that you're a   ^^^^^^^^^^
> Laz> lot more eager to make than I am.
> 
> Conversely, your definition of "rape fantasy" seems to involve a lot more
> of an extreme kind of image or attitude than mine.  Rape follows a *wide*
> spectrum.

Wrong. The minute we can each dream up our own definition of a word, the word
ceases to have any menaing whatsoever. Rape IS having unwanted or unconsented
to sex with another human being. A rape fantasy is a fantasy which involves a
rape. You are trying to defend your prior post by saying "Well, it means it to
me, so my statement was valid." 

That doesn't work on exams, and it not only does not work here, but it clouds
the issues. 

> 
> Laz> And by the way -- since when do dominance or force automatically
> Laz> imply rape?
> 
> Depends on the sample you have hung out with.  In my experience bondage
> and S/M attitudes were nil.  Your mileage may, and most likely does,
> vary.
>

No, unless rape means anything Synth defines as rape, it does not mean force.
It means unwanted/unconsnted to sex.

 
> Laz> If these ... are really typical of the fantasies of the males you
> Laz> were socialized with, then the fact that you still associated with
> Laz> them says almost as much about you as it does about them.
> 
> "Still associated with them"?  From what hat did you pull *this* rabbit
> out of ...?

1. You stated you associated with them.
2. You stated they had rape fantasies (although, from what you described, these
were not rape fantasies).
3. If you still associate with them, you are wilfully associating with men who
(you have claimed) want to rape women.


> 
> Laz> (It sure as hell doesn't
> Laz> sound like the people *I* remember hanging out with.  Did you
> Laz> have a little circle of gutter-trash you were socialized with
> Laz> part-time on the side?)
> 
> Somehow this sounds defensive.  I hope you don't think I've been
> implying *you* or any circles you and I together have been in, because
> you and those people are NOT who I'm talking about here ...


No, it was an offensive front. I believe it was aimed at getting you to see the
inconsistancy between what you have said, and you actions.

> 
>> I agree that simply hearing of someone expressing a desire to have sex
>> with someone, without explicitly describing whether or not that person
>> consents, cannot be construed to be a rape fantasy. 
> 
> Laz> From where I sit, it obviously looks like you're construing
> Laz> exactly that.
> 
> You mean "looked", don't you, since I had now clarified that?  Or does
> that not matter to you?

Then instead of defending you prior post, admit that you have no evidence to
equate "I'd love to shove my dick in her mouth" with "I'd love to rape her."

DC
Newsgroups: talk.rape