NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48894

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48894 soc.men:19693 soc.women:20056 alt.politics.homosexuality:7468
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!jis
From: [e-mail] (Jack Szwergold)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:39:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]><[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Panix, NYC
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Lines: 105

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Kalb) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>Rape is *not* sexually motivated.
>>Rape is motivated by violence and intimidation.  That's why
>>little children and old women get raped.
>>I suggest that the difference between rape and other forms of
>>assault is largely an arbitrary one.

>There was a recent case in which a dentist was arrested for rape who
>had sexual relations with women whom he had anaesthetized in the
>course of treating them.  Most of them didn't even know it had
>happened.  There have also been recent discussions of college men
>doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
>them while they were not sober enough to consent.
>The "violence and intimidation" in such acts is not obvious to me
>unless "violence" means something different from what it usually means
>when we talk of crimes of violence.

Then to you violence means punching and kicking, and generally beating up
or destroying a person.  Jim, get a clue.  You can be violent to a person
without laying a hand on them.  Harassment is a form of violence.  Prank
phone calls mae repeatedly over a period of time can be violent.  I think
your problem is that you don't understand the difference between
-violence- and -sex-.  Thus, you are clueless...

>Should such acts be treated as
>rape and their perpetrators punished more severely than (say) a
>dentist or a college student who takes an unconscious woman's
>temperature with an oral fever thermometer without her consent, and
>without any justification relating to medical treatment, but only
>because of idle curiosity?  It seems to me they should, but I'm not
>sure you would agree.

They should be treated equally.  Both are violations of a persons privacy.
 I don't understand you, and why you keep on belaboring this point (other
than trying to bait others...)

>In addition -- it's impossible for a man to carry out a rape if he is
>not sexually excited.

WRONG jimbo.   There are cases in which women (and men) have been raped
with inanmate objects (such as bats and broomsticks).  Unfortunately you
see rape as "just" violent sex, which it isn't.  A person who is raping
another is not doing so for sexual gratification.  It is done to be
violent.  Thus, if a man uses his penis or hand to violate and molseta a
woman, that pensi or hand is a WEAPON.  Nothing less or more....

>Literature and other materials designed to be
>sexually stimulating often include rape scenes, or so I am told.

So then ANY material designed to be sexually stimulating MUST contain
rape scenes.  You really don't get it.  Show me a rape scene in the Sports
Illustrated Swimsuit issue.  Show me a rape scene in Playboy.  But I
forgot you are only told about what are in these magazines (you have never
actually seen one in your life).  Please spare us your morality....

>De Sade, who I have read and who specifically states that he wants what
>he writes to be sexually stimulating, is loaded with rapes of the most
>unbelievably aggravated sort.  So I find the insistence that rape has
>no sexual motivation odd.      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The motivation is violence.  Pure and simple.  Your pathtic perceptions
are like a person saying that riots are only started so people can steal
TV's and clothes from stores.  Also, you have just contradicted yourself
JIMBO!  Whil in the previous statement you say "Literature and other
materials designed to be sexually stimulating often include rape scenes,
OR SO I AM TOLD."  How the fuck can you say that, and then talk about the
sexual content of the works of De Sade?  You are contradicting yourself
and proving how wrong you are....

>Why is this point so important to people?

Because most well adjusted individuals understand the fundamental
differences between RAPE and SEX, something that still eludes you....

>What is at stake?

The moral perception that somehow rape and sex are interchangeable.  The
first post you put up here that got some many people angry was the one
that equate rape to sex.  That is not true, and I think you know it.  But
for some reasons you would like society to accept rape and sex as being
interchangable.  Gimme a break loser...

>What bad things will happen if it is accepted that rape includes an essential
>sexual element?

Sex is not ESSENTIAL for rape.  Your simplistic equation states that
"SEX+VIOLENCE=RAPE".  This shows the world (or how much of the world that
reads this) that you really can't fathom abstractions and such.  If that
were true, then I guess I "raped" a girl I once had sex with because she
bruised her knee whil it was happening.  By your logic, I would be a
rapist.  Rape is a violation of a persons sexual being, and although it
can include elements of sex, it doesn't mean that it is required.

Jim, I hope these posts are a reflection of a person who just "doesn't get
it", rather than the posts of a person who would like to argue that
everything should be changed since sex and rape are the same (in your
mind)

Jack
[e-mail]