Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 14:47:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1089 times
|
| |
|
|
James Simpson wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > In part. Yes. I think it's important that everyone understands that. I think
> > the same thing about another touchy subject, rape victims. Victims in all
> > sense own part of the responsibility for their situation. To some degree
> > everyone who gets in an accident is _partially_ responsible for that accident.
>
>
> > Chris
>
> Ok..into the fray I plunge: You have a point regarding promiscuous (spelling?)
> behavior, but I know someone who was raped when an intruder broke into her
> house. I'd hardly blame the victim in that case. I wholeheartedly disagree
> with your statement that, "victims in all sense own part of the responsibility
> for their situation." That is a statement that I'd suggest needs some
> moderating.
Chris's point, and I agree with it, is that the victim does have some
responsibility. Perhaps they should have lived in a safer neighborhood.
Perhaps they should have instituted a neighborhood watch. BUT, this
minor responsibility doesn't negate the far greater responsibility of
the rapist. He chose to initiate a forcefull act upon someone else. So
no, I don't "blame" the victim, but the blamelessness of the victim
doesn't say that we should absolve victims of all responsibility. It
would be nice if a woman could chose to walk down a street wearing
something you might expect to see inside Playboy, but the reality is
that the world is not perfect, and calling such attention to ones self
is unwise (but should NEVER provide an excuse for a rapist, and should
be almost irrelevant information in court - though dressing that way is
reasonable to bring up, but then we just need to establish that despite
how the woman was dressed, she did tell the guy "no." Once that is
established, the man is guilty of rape [assuming the rest of the
evidence supports that the incident really did occur, and he was the man
involved], regardless of the fact that the woman was dressed rather
provocatively).
It is probably even reasonable for the government to say that dressing
(or not dressing) provocatively in public space is not allowed, if
nothing else, because of the increased cost for the additional police
presence which would be required, but one does get into freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly issues here (though I have seen an
argument that the 1st amendments reference to speech should ONLY cover
speech and not any other form of expression [I think the fact that the
press is seperately mentioned is part of this justification]). If the
woman is dressed illegally, that still doesn't absolve the man of the
crime of rape.
Incidentally, I do support almost any claim of rape, so long as the
woman can establish that she clearly said no, and that in the case of
marriage or a long term relationship, the woman had clearly indicated
that the conditions had changed, I.e. if a couple has sex every night,
and the woman eagerly participates even when saying "I'm not really in
the mood tonight", if the next night, she says the same, and doesn't
resist physically, she's got a pretty weak case, but on the other hand,
if she just said "no, I mean it, not tonight" where she hadn't the
previous nights, then she has clearly indicated that the conditions have
changed. This is a tricky area, but I believe that we need to treat
these cases seriously. Of course we should also err on the side of not
too hastily convicting husbands of rape.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Ok..into the fray I plunge: You have a point regarding promiscuous (spelling?) behavior, but I know someone who was raped when an intruder broke into her house. I'd hardly blame the victim in that case. I wholeheartedly disagree with your (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
