Print

Print


And if economic ‘duress’ is a factor, most prostitutes are victims of rape.

CR

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:37 AM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Just a thought
>
> In the typist girl case there does not seem any duress. There does seem an
> implied complicity, an awareness of what will follow what, and no
> resistance, also an indifference to the shoddy act. Rape? Yes and no?
>
> CR
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:25 PM Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> P. S. As far as I can tell, the Oxford and Cambridge definitions still
>> include force and a woman who is "unwilling." There has been a petition to
>> the OED to change that. I don't know if it has done so. The USA Justice
>> Dept. definition is not that traditional one now.
>>
>> But what it means is no longer the traditional one for many reading
>> today, in Britain either--hence the petition.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:05 PM Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 indifferece.
>>>
>>> *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
>>> <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr>(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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>