There is a distinction; the question is whether there is a difference--in
the term "rape." "Flushed and decided, he assaults at once, / Exploring
hands encounter no defense."

It is true that she does not stop him. Is that required to make it rape?
Many of the #MeToo women who have reported being assaulted (or raped) also
did not. So the question remains whether women are responsible if they do
not "defend."

I am not making an argument about the word; I am raising a question at the
heart of #MeToo about who is responsible for an "assault" and what that
means about "rape." There is a new definition: *"This is archived content
from the U.S. Department of Justice website."* By this definition it was a
rape because "His vanity requires no response, / And makes a welcome of

*There was no "consent."* Clearly that is a different definition from
whatever was law in 1922 (or 1927 in US). But it is what young women
now generally accept and what is official. So the discussion needs context:

January 6, 2012
*The following post appears courtesy of Susan B. Carbon, Director of the
Office on Violence Against Women.* In a victory for survivors of rape and
their advocates, the Attorney General announced a newly revised definition
of rape for nationwide data collection, ensuring that rape will be more
accurately reported nationwide. The change sends an important message to
all victims that what happens to them matters, and to perpetrators that
they will be held accountable.  It was because of the voices of survivors,
advocates, law enforcement personnel and many others that FBI Director
Robert Mueller was able to make this important change within the FBI’s Uniform
Crime Report <>(UCR) Summary
Reporting System (SRS).  “Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as
“the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.”  That
definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included
forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body
part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person,
without the consent of the victim.”

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 12:15 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> These days it’s being mulled a rape if a husband inflicts himself upon his
> wife against her will, even if she yields under duress of certain outmoded
> norms of allegiance. Yielding under certain duress, economic or other, does
> tantamount to being raped.
> One would, however, make a distinction between
> The change of Philomel, by the barbarous king
> So rudely forced;
> and
> She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
> Hardly aware of her departed lover;
> Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass:
> “Well now that’s done: and I’m glad it’s over.”
> CR
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:39 AM Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear Tim,
>> I think it is what now gets called "date rape." My students tend to agree
>> on that. Also, terms and ideas about what constitutes "rape" have changed a
>> lot in #MeToo. The idea that it is entirely a woman's responsibility to
>> stop an asssult (Eliot's word) is gone with Harvey Weinstein et. al.
>> Cheers,
>> Nancy
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 11:31 AM Materer, Timothy J. <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> I’m offering an adult ed (Osher) class on Eliot, and yesterday we
>>> discussed the Typist and Clerk passage. I of course related the situation
>>> to the Philomela story and other related passages and raised the issue of
>>> whether the typist was raped. One woman said that she was not b/c the
>>> typist offered no real resistance and was not forced, and the class (15)
>>> accepted that view. But I plan to return to the issue next class with the
>>> question of whether economic (she’s a typist in a bed-sit) and patriarchal
>>> forces were in play, which would amount to duress and thus rape.
>>> Maybe some of you could offer some tips about how to approach the issue.