Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Something NEW... Message-ID: <1924@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 19:56:17 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1924 Posted: Sat Oct 19 19:56:17 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 06:21:49 EDT References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP> <1333@ihlpg.UUCP> <590@linus.UUCP> <917@utcs.uucp> <2232@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 76 >>>Why is rape illegal? [PHILLIP W. SERVITA] >> It's not! Rape is SOMETIMES illegal, sometimes not. For example, in most >> states it is legal to rape your wife. Etc. [ALAN J. ROSENTHAL] > In those jurisdictions where forced sex with one's wife is legal, > rape is DEFINED so as to exclude such sex; therefore, in such > jurisdictions, IT IS NOT LEGALLY RAPE. However rape is defined, > it is always defined as a crime, therefore the statement "it is > legal to rape X" is never true. [ROSENBLATT] I find it frightening that Rosenblatt has written exactly what I would have written here. He is right. Though I would have rephrased the original question to read "why is forced sex, often called rape, a crime?" Admittedly, there are situations where forced sex is legal (unfortunately). >> Also, it seems absurd to me >> to call something illegal if someone does it and is not convicted for it, >> or especially if they are actually acquitted, so many rapes are not illegal, >> by a reasonable definition of 'illegal'. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] > Wow! That means the people who broke into our apartment locker and > stole our dishes didn't do anything illegal -- after all, the police > never caught them, so they were never convicted for it. Most criminals > are never arrested; most of those arrested never get indicted; and most > of those indicted never go to trial, let alone get convicted. If this > is a reasonable definition of "illegal," then "legal" must mean > "anything you can get away with doing and escape punishment." This is really frightening. Another complete agreement (Rosenblatt has said again exactly what I would have said.) >> In case you were asking, Why do we abhor rape?, I don't think this has a >> direct answer. Being raped often ruins a woman's life. At least it has >> a profound negative effect on the rest of it. [A. J. ROSENTHAL] > Yup. And "we" abhor it so much that "we" made it illegal, subject to > heavy punishment. WHO made rape illegal? Well, rape was outlawed > in England and the U.S. long before women had any say at all in the > government, so it must have been MEN who made rape illegal, after > seeing the suffering it brings. Men didn't want their wives, sisters, > mothers and daughters to suffer. The victims of rape could not speak > for themselves in a legal forum, so "merciful men, the sons of merciful > men" had to speak for them. (Forced sex, even with one's wife, has > ALWAYS been against Jewish religious law.) (Uh oh, Jewish law with a feminist base, Matt? Respecting the rights of women?---YOU KNEW THE DISAGREEMENT PART HAD TO SHOW UP EVENTUALLY :-) The basis for rape being illegal had nothing to do with sympathy for the women. Maybe not "nothing", but it certainly wasn't the underlying reason. The reason was that rape was equated to theft of property---the woman was either a man's wife or daughter (thus "property"). Thus I disagree with both RosenTHAL and RosenBLATT here. > Now -- if Mr. Servita has some sort of analogy with anti-abortion laws > in mind, let him make it. It ought to be apparent from the preceding > paragraph just what sort of analogy Matt Rosenblatt would make. But there is in fact no place for such an analogy, since the original premise is blatantly false. I find it quaint that an anti-feminist like Matt would claim that rape was originally illegal out of respect for women's rights to make his point. You still haven't answered that woman's questions (and mine) about what is so heinous about things like feminism. You asserted this is though it were obvious, and left us all hanging. We're all waiting on the edge of our seats... > But if we are going to see a rehash of Susan Brownmiller's preposterous > bilge tripe, please spare us. I haven't read it, but given your eagerness to simply dismiss it (because you don't like it and perhaps can't defend against it), perhaps it SHOULD be brought up. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr