From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbrief
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:47:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <Bu2Grt.M4t.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.024134.7681@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>#In article <1992Aug29.040317.18445@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>[one man's fictional account of a conception deleted]
>
>##Is this rape?  He never consented.  He was not penetrated.
>
>#It is rape.  The man is not able to give his consent to sex, thus it's
>#rape.
>
>Of course it would be, if it really happened.  I think that
>Hoffmeyer was being a bit dishonest when he mixed fact and 
>fiction in his article.
>

Oh, come on, Susan.  I picked a "hypothetical" example that defies the
classic language of typical rape definitions in state laws.  Just
because it was from a fictional book doesn't mean that it couldn't
happen or that it didn't happen.  In fact, I chose it because it wasz
familiar to so many people - all those that read the book and all those
that saw the movie (although I don't recall the explanation of the
specifics of the sex act being very clear in the movie, but some folks
who had only seen the movie recognized it immediately anyway).  The
whole point was that so many of us read this passage of saw it in the
movie, but how many of us thought to themselves, "My God, this is rape."
Which it was - no doubt.  If you don't believe me, ask Farthing.

>#Of course, you know these staunch feminists who frankly don't respect
>#men and their suffering.  If they're not becoming lesbians, killing
>#their babies, or engaging in witchcraft, they're becoming nurses so
>#they can rape unconscious men at will.  This is something Pat
>#Robertson should add to his list of the perversions feminists want to
>#inflict on the rest of us God-fearing folk.
>

I love Farthing's anger.  Yes Farthing, I was being a pig.  how big of
you to notice.

>Irving also created a bizarre group of "feminists" who
>mutilated themselves to protest a rape and mutilation.
>(I've seen some people argue that rape was the central 
>theme of _Garp_.)  Few people would cite "Ellen Jamesians"
>as an example of radical feminists, though.
>

Yuck.  The Ellen Jamesians, I thought, were the epitomy of radical
feminists.  Cutting out their tongues to protest a brutal rape of a
young girl.  Why does self-mutilation help to fix the problem?  It was
a completely emotional reaction.  Oh, did you notice that Irving (as in
John - not Washington) had one of these "Ellen Jamesians" murder Garp
at the end of the book/movie (in fact, it was Garp's neighbor, who
-even though he never did anything to him, was quite sure that he had
somehow molested her when she was a child - you know - those memories
of how some big, bad evil man abused you when you were three years
old)?  Doesn't say much about what Irving thought of all those "Ellen
Jamesians," does it?

>Susan

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  To hell with typos - I typed this in 7 minutes - I have to go to
my son's 4th birthday party.  I'm out of here - 8 minutes.