Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (73898)	9/4/2003 6:47:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Excellent post. It's a very hard issue, worthy of discussion, and I hope we can keep the discussion civil. I hear this discussed too many times when it deteriorates into personal attack and harsh accusations. Jewel and I are both parents of daughters, and we want our daughters kept safe from rape. I assume that we both want them to be able to go on dates and have the assurance that they will not be forced into intercourse against their will. OTOH, you are right that most women expect and want to be wooed (this is a biological imperative, in fact, present in virtually all sexual species) and that that wooing doesn't usually have an abrupt moment in time where both people are absolutely against sex and the next second both people are absolutely for sex and neither thereafter wavers or dithers. A clear no should be respected as a clear no, period. But, what about a no said when the physical actions say yes, yes, yes? What about Oh, that feels so good, I love it, but we shouldn't be doing this, should we?" It's easy to say there should be a bright line. And sometimes there are. No said with no conflicting actions is always no. Using drugs or physical force is always no. But there can be, as you say, a hazy area between no and yes. At least one college or university, I have read, requires a signed agreement to engage in sex; if there is no signed agreement, and the woman later objects that it was rape, even if she was as eager for the act as he was at the time, if he didn't get the signed consent, it's rape. Now there's a bright line for you! (Until you start arguing about whether the signature really was voluntary, or was coerced by honeyed words and kisses sweeter than wine!)

To: one_less who wrote (73898)	9/6/2003 8:32:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It simply stated that the female should also be taken to task for any contributory (provokee) responsibility. Miniskirts and hot pants are not illegal. They meet the legal indecent exposure requirements. No one goes to jail for wearing them. It is a known cultural norm that most women want and expect to be wooed. Rational people would consider it responsible for men to make a pass and for the female to initially decline as a matter of self respect. It is called fore play to then put on charm with flowers, wining, and dining and silvery tongued carresses until the female is in the mood. And at no point yet has the woman said "No, leave me alone!" and at no point has the man used any sort of physical force. No problem yet. Date rape is a problem that involves varying degrees of confusing mixed messages and misunderstandings about what actually occured and whether or not the female had willingly acquised to the advances of the man or whether he was doltishly dense or refusing to take no for an answer. Establishing what happened and how clear it was often requires the wisdom of Solomon and the intelligence of Einstein. I'm sure juries often get it wrong, usually in favor of the man because of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule. And it is possible that a woman meant "No", but conveyed it in such a murky manner that the man did not understand it. It is also incumbent on them to be clear. I see a difference between that and misunderstanding signals (still rape). You don't? Misunderstanding is one thing if the situation is actually murky and the signals aren't clear. Ignoring a clear "No" is another. We all own our bodies as we own nothing else. They are us. We have an (almost) absolute right to determine what happens to them. (Almost because process of law can take away part of that right and also medical emergency while unconscious.)