Rape is abusive
In response to Mr. Goering’s letter
(DN, Oct 17), the line between sex
and rape is anything but fine. Sexual
intercourse taken on its most basic
and unemotional level is genital con
tact. Rape is the act of physically
forcing a woman to have sexual inter
course — a physical and violent act.
The most destructive aspect of rape is
not the sex, which Mr. Goering re
peatedly referred to, but the physical
and emotional abuse. How can one
ask to be raped if the act of rape
inherently involves the use of force?
The necessity of force hardly sug
gests a mutual decision.
I could walk down the street naked
and appear to be looking for sex, but
I am not asking to be raped.
Lastly, the United States court of
law is not an institution that passes
juugmeni on me morality ot a person.
The court system was established to
protect the rights and freedom of
evei^ individual, moral or immoral,
willing to have sex or not, with under
wear or without Rape is a physical
violation of a woman’s body and
mind. It is not merely sex, and it’s
never asked for.
Jennifer Sinor
junior
English/Russian
Rape attitudes
are ‘dangerous’
Having read the letter by Ross
Goering (DN, Oct. 17) about the
Florida rape trial, I found the atti
tudes expressed dangerous, and a
refutation therefore in order.
Several poinLs are worthy of note.
First, rape can never, ever be justified
under any circumstances. Just be
cause the Florida woman chose to
w'-tu viuuimg wiueii was apparcnuy
revealing does not confer to every
Tom, Dick or Harry a privilege to
violate that woman. Even if she was
interested in sex, doesn’t she still
have a right to at least select a part
ner?
Mr. Goering suggests that if a
woman is dressed provocatively, a
man can infer consent to have sex or
at least justify raping her. This argu
ment is beneath contempt. It suggests
that rape is the fault of the victim (a
problem rape victims have enormous
trouble dealing with anyway) while
freeing the man of accountability. It
perpetuates the myth that women are
constantly aroused, always want it
and mean “yes” when they say
“no.” And it lends itself to infinitely
broad application. For example, I
take a first date back to her apart
ment, she submits to my wandering
hands and whammo, she has caused
me to be aroused. Ergo, I am now
justified in “consummating the rela
tionship” despite any protestations?
Rubbish, yes, but a logical extension
of Goering’s argument.
Worse yet, Goering suggests that
some women provoke their own
rapes. The legal principle on this is
unequivocal. The law docs not recog
nize provocation as a defense to rape.
To do so would be nonsensical.
Second, there is no question of
whether the Florida woman was
raped. Goering suggests that her pro
vocative dress was a manifestation of
assent to have sex with whomever
decided to initiate sex; that a court of
law would find her a consenting party
to the act. Goering is, of course, very
mnr*H micfolrnn
A law enforcement officer on the
scene testified that he believed she
was raped at knifepoint. Further, the
jurors themselves described the act as
a rape. Her lack of consent was not
the issue, her lack of underwear
clearly was. Yet, according to Goer
ing, “anyone with half a brain”
could see she would be a willing
partner to sex. While it may be true'
that people with only half of their
brains intact feel this way, I would
argue that this is an altitude possessed
primarily by those people whose
half-brains lie between their testes.
Finally, contrary to what Mr.
Goering suggests, there is no fine line
between “looking for sex” and rape.
In fact, the distinction is quite clear.
With the former, consenlcxists. With
the latter it docs not. What qualifies
as consent is only slightly less clear.
Consent to go out to dinner is not de
facto consent to have sex later. Con
sent to “heavy pelting” is not de
facto consent to anything more. Most
importantly, consent, once given, can
be revoked at any time.
Greg Coffey
first year
law student
Jury misplaces
blame for rape
Ross Goering asks (DN, Oct. 17),
“Who says?” I think if you asked any
rational person, male or female,
they’ll say that the jury in Florida
made a mistake - one that unfortu
nately will perpetuate the current
violent and abusive treatment of
women in this society.
You say that this woman asked for
it by the way she was dressed. It
doesn’t matter what the hell this or
any woman wears, it does not con
done any type of abusive behavior
whether it be verbal, physical or sex
ual. I can’tbelieve this line of reason
ing.
I’m also really sick of men justify
ing this and other forms of violent
behavior by claiming that women
“ask for it,” or deserve it and other
ridiculous logic. Wake up! No one is
willing or deserves to be violated as a
physical person but more importantly
as a human being.
The most unfortunate result of the
Florida case, if there can be one most
unfortunate, is that it clears the way
frtr f 11 f 11rr» rvf roru> nrw-l
—- —- —' MIIU * IV/IVIlvV
against women without punishment
or even legal or moral recognition.
Furthermore it inaccurately places
the blame of a rapist’s acts on the
victim, misconstruing the facts about
sexual roles and relationships and
will give the signal to rapists and all
males that this behavior is recognized
and justified.
Lisa Weems
sophomore
English education
Lack of attire not
grounds for attack
In response to the letter by Ross
Goering (DN, Oct. 17), she was ask
ing for the rape because of how she
was dressed? For one thing, rape is
not a sexual act motivated by desire,
it is a violent act motivated by hatred.
Yet since Ross appears to believe that
it is sexual, let’s assume it is for the
sake of argument.
Does that mean the next time
you’re on the beach, Ross, or playing
a sport on a hot summer day without
your shirt, a woman (or man) can
attack you and do whatever she or he
wants to your body because of your
mine ui iae* oi: nuer an, you arc
half naked and wearing skimpy liule
shorts. “You are advertising your
body.” You obviously want sex and
don’t care with whom.
Maybe you wouldn’t mind being
attacked by, say, Meg Ryan or Ma
donna but not by someone you may
think looks like a stereotypical Rus
sian athlete. My point is that the
choice should be yours.
Perhaps this woman was looking
for some affection through sex - yet
not with the man who attacked her.
Sex gained through mental coercion
or physical force is rape, and this
woman, whom authorities testified
was held at knifepoint, was raped.
Unfortunately, there arc still igno
rant people out there like Ross Goer
ing who have perpetuated such asi
nine and outrageous court rulings as
this.
Kelly Nugent
senior
Russian and international affairs
Michelle Douglas
sophomore
advertising
Acts of violence
are unacceptable
This letter is in response to Ross
Goering’s letter (DN, Oct. 17) about
the Florida rape victim, stating that
the woman deserved to be raped.
First of all, I would like to say to
you and the reading audience that I
am embarrassed. And why? Because
Mr. Goering, I am now one of the
unfortunate individuals who has to
admit that you graduated from my
high school. And worse yet, from my
class.
Since when has an act of violence
been taught to be accepted?
If I mend a bird’s broken wing, I
do not expect it to peck at me. When
I tell a friend that I care, I do not
expect to be slapped in the face. If I
am out on a quest for peace, should
somebody kill me? In the same sense,
the woman may have been looking
for love, and a pleasure in life.
But if you think that a woman
enjoys being forced upon while
somebody is punching her face and
cutting her repeatedly, well, buddy, I
pity your dates.
And tell me one thing, Ross: If
your sister or close friend or relative
came to you in the middle of the
night, battered, bleeding and bruised,
and told you she had been raped ...
would you hold her gently in your
arms and comfort her by saying,
“Now, now. It’sOK. Everything will
be all right. But... you did deserve
this.”
What kind of man arc you, Ross? 1
thought that when a woman says no,
she means no. It’s just that simple. If
a man crosses (hat line, then he’s not
a man at all. Or is it that you don’t
want to admit that women do say no
to you?
Ross, you sicken me.
Patrick Lambrecht
junior
theater arts
Rape isn't among
human freedoms
What basic rights do we have? The
freedom of speech. The freedom of
religion. The right of choice. The
right to form our own opinion. These
among other rights are what makes
me proud to live in this country.
Along with these rights are simple
rights of walking the way we want,
smiling the way we want, going
where we want and, yes, dressing the
way we want. Another basic right is
that of saying yes or no to what we
want. In a nutshell, we can be who
ever or whatever we want. Ross
Goering made a statement (DN, Oct.
17) that made me wonder. He said
“anyone with such a low standard of
morals (because of how she was
dressed) as this girl, cannot prove
without a reasonable doubt, in a court
of law that she wasn’t willing to have
sex.”
Mr. Goering, who gives you the
right to judge the morals of someone
you know nothing about except for
the clothes she was wearing? Who
gives you the right to say just because
she wore a lace miniskirt and no
underwear that she was asking to be
RAPED!?! Who gives you or anyone
else that right? There is not a fine line
between looking for sex and being
raped! One is a choice and the other is
clearly not a choice.
I fear for our country with minds
like yours and the jurors of this case.
Is this girl responsible for every male
who cannot control himself when a
woman dresses a certain way? Would
this give him the right to rape anyone
on a beach with a bikini on (wouldn’t
you call that advertising her body)?
Does the way you dress give me the
right to attack you, or for that matter
docs your differing in opinion give
me that right? The way you have set
up your opinion is that each and ev
eryone of us has to be conscious of
everything we do for fear that it may
give another the right to violate our
individual rights.
1 am sorry, but 1 am not up lor that
type of labor. 1 surely don’t believe
that you would stand for a country
that enforced law in this manner.
The right of choice is a component
of our everyday Jives, a right we all
too easily forget we actually have.
This case not only took away this
woman’s right of choice but it was
taken away because of who she
chooses to be or in this instance, what
she chose to wear.
This woman chose not to have sex,
so clearly her rights were violated. If
we start to base decisions and opin
ions on the way people choose to
dress, walk, talk or express them
selves, we inevitably will lose many
of the rights we all too often forget we
have.
Irene Hannappcl
junior
business administration/psychology
Former DN editor upset by denouncement of Abernathy
“No man is a hero to his valet de
chambre,” goes the well-known
proverb. It is this bit of folk wisdom,
I suppose, to which Lee Rood objects
in application to Martin Luther King
Jr. Rood, however, should recall
Hegel’s addendum to the proverb:
“But not because the former is no
hero, but because the latter is a
valet.”
Abernathy’s recollection of
King’s last night in this world - he
claims it was spent in less-lhan-pla
tonic communion with members of
the opposite sex — hardly detracts
from King’s deserved status as a
modem hero, let alone constitutes, as
Rood paroxysmally describes it, “the
worst nightmare of today’s civil
rights activists.”
Rood, in contrast, apparently be
lieves that the fact so significantly
detracts from King’s achievements
that she engages in shrill denuncia
tion of Abernathy, indisputably one
of King’s closest friends and an im
portant civil rights leader in his own
right, for writing down his recollec
tion of the fact and she, by implica
tion, sides with those calling for
Abernathy to retract his recollection.
I agree with some of the thrust of
Rockj s sentiments, yet several things
bother me about the editorial (Aside
from the fact that Rood obviously has
not read the book and, thus, has abso
lutely no good reason to believe
Abernathy’s book is intended to
“Belittle (King’s) accomplish
ments.’’ Also, Abernathy is hardly
“exposing” King as a “woman
izer.” That King struggled with
sexual sin is already well-known
from many other sources - and King
admitted that it was a serious problem
in his life).
First, the debate exploded into the
media because several persons who
might very well know what King did
during his last night disputed Aber
nathy’s recollection. They were
around King at the time. Rood, how
ever, was not. Aside from the sheer
pretense of Rood to assert her opinion
in a dispute over which she can’t
possibly know the facts firsthand «
since it is precisely those firsthand
facts that arc the focus of the dispute
- is the more practical question,
since she has seen fit to speak, of what
is her basis for independently evalu
ating the veracity of the disputing
parties. I mean, really, I have a diffi
cult time believing that Rev. Aber
nathy would create a fabrication in
order to sell books; at the same time I
have a hard time believing that the
other parties would call Abernathy’s
recollection a lie unless it were. What
does Rood know about the character
of any of these people that would
permit her to make the conclusion
that she does?
Whal’s more, the tone of the edito
rial was that of outrage - and an
outrage not fully accounted for by the
possibility that Abernathy lied.
Rather, a fair reading would indicate
that even if his recollection is true,
Rood would have had request, but,
what’s worse, now that the recollec
tion is public, Rood would now have
Abernathy silenced or even retract
his claim even if it is fact.
Perhaps Rood would like to be
lieve that Martin Luther King, the
saint, was not also Marlin Luther
King Jr., the sinner. As far as it goes
- so would I. But don’t expect my
wish to alter the facts of his life.
Biographies arc supposed to tell
the stories of peoples’ lives. To be
sure, much modern biography seems
to pander to a prurient interest -
which is reason for lamentation in
itself; and perhaps, that more appro
priate topic for Rood’s jeremiad.
But given that the event is re
corded in the biography, what pur
pose does it serve to fume over the
facts of the matter? (I note, again, that
individuals with access to the facts
can fume over Abernathy’s recollec
tion; in which case, the problem for
the rest of us is to evaluate the com
peting claims.)
At bottom, I guess my problem
with Rood’s editorial is this: I’m
presently on leave, after two years in
residence, from one of the nation’s
most liberal universities -- Brown
University. During my sojourn there I
had occasion to note that it is not only
an unfashionable opinion that brings
criticism -- that is to be accepted —
but, more disturbing, if a fact is
deemed inconvenient by the arbiters
of the Politically Correct, then one
could expect a host of ideological lap
dogs to begin a noisy yapping so as to
prevent the fact from being asserted
and, if not that, then heard.
The student daily, for which 1
write, while largely composed of
very liberal students, always insists
on being free from the demands of the
Politically Correct -- an insistence
that has occasionally resulted in re
porters and editors being assaulted
physically as well as verbally. Thus,
although we disagree profoundly at
times, these arc liberals for whom I
have the greatest respect.
In contrast, in her editorial - and I
have noticed a similar tone taken
recently in editorials written in the
Daily Nebraskan’s institutional voice
- Lee Rood seems intent on instilling
the chilling dynamic of the Politi
cally Correct at UNL; she seems in
tent on suppressing through shrill
denunciation a fact ostensibly incon
venient for her ideology.
I think Rood could, perhaps, ques
tion the need for Abernathy to have
included the particular recollect:on at
issue in a biography of King (I’m
open to arguments one way or the
other on the whole question of sex
and biographies); we can all criticize
the book’s publisher for shamelessly
using the revelation to sell books; and
we can lament the increased demand
for the book as a consequence of
prurient interests. But it is wrong for
a journalist - especially a journalist
- to denounce the publication of a
fact simply because it is inconvenient
to his or her view of the world.
A better example for Rood to fol
low — and all journalists for that
matter — was set by Desmoulins in his
newspaper, the Vieux Cordelier, dur
ing the Terror following the French
Revolution. The Jacobin regime of
the time was the culture of the Politi
cally Correct par excellence. When
Desmoulins, an early protege of
Robespierre, dared to question the
necessity for the Terror’s wholesale
slaughter, Robespierre burned a copy
of the newspaper at the Jacobin club.
Fully understanding* that his execu
tion would be the result, Desmoulins
stood up and answered, “Bruler, ce
n’est pas repondre.”
So, loo, Ms. Rood: To bleat a
denunciation without knowledge is
not to reply.
Jim Rogers
former DN columnist
and editorial page editor
