The 1995 Women’s Conference in China presents an opportunity to discuss the roles, perceptions and other issues pertaining to women not only worldwide, but in the U.S. as well.

And while Hillary Rodham Clinton has done an admirable job in presenting an informed and

intelligent view on issues of importance during her stay in Beijing, some of her compatriots at home have done more to harm their cause than help it.

Recently, while watching a discussion on television, a women’s rights activist was presenting her case that women should be able to take men to court who have sex with them after promising them things (a continuing relationship, gifts, etc.).

Her reasoning for this was that if a man used a woman for sex when she thought it would lead to something more, it can be extremely emotionally traumatic for a woman.

Her opponent argued that while it was a very crappy thing for a man to do, getting the legal system involved was wasteful and dangerous.

As the discussion continued, her opponent showed the dangers of attempting to legislate, or legally define the most intimate act of humanity.

The discussion inevitably led to a debate on the issue of what constitutes rape, since the argument for taking someone to court over this issue was that what a man did was basically “emotional rape.”

When asked what exactly constituted rape, the woman replied, “Whenever you have sex without the woman’s consent.”

Her argument was a little less bothersome than the anti-male group who claimed that sex with men was always rape, no matter the circumstances under which copulation occurred.

But it is still a troubling statement. Does this mean homosexual sex between two men is always rape? How about if the woman consents, but the guy really doesn’t want to?

Her assertion was that women should have total control over how far a sexual/romantic encounter should go. The male is just a witting dope, happy to go along with whatever his partner says.

Whatever happened to consensual, mutual determination of sexuality with your partner?

With such a ridiculous argument utilized as the basis for judicial interference, her thesis quickly broke down in my eyes.

How could such a thing be legislated and judged upon by a court system?

I saw some scary incidents from the past becoming commonplace in the American judicial system.

One such incidents occurred at Pomona College in 1991. A female student attended a party, where she and a male friend became intoxicated. The two left the party, and later had oral sex.

Two and a half years later she accused her partner from that evening of raping her, based on the fact that she never actually consented.

Luckily, the case never made it to court, but it provided a frightening scenario. Could men be charged with rape everytime a woman did not grab a megaphone and shout in their ears, “YES! YOU MAY HAVE SEX WITH ME!”?

The Pomona case, to me, certainly doesn’t support a charge of rape, but it also has another effect.

It desensitizes us to what rape really is: one of the most horrible, evil, unspeakably ugly acts a human being can commit.

Using rape has become so commonplace: “He raped my mind.” “Someone broke into my apartment. I feel raped.”

Even Indiana Head Basketball Coach Bobby Knight, used the term by saying that if you’re going to get raped, “you might as well sit back and enjoy it.” In this case he was referring to getting his ass kicked in a basketball game.

Should we really use such a powerful word for something as common and relatively minor as losing a game?

Ask anybody which they would rather choose, lose a game of tennis or be sexually assaulted, and I’m sure they’ll be able to distinguish the huge difference in events.

So am I saying lying to someone to get sex is ok?

Of course not. It’s morally wrong and a really terrible thing to do. And the victim of this type of behavior has a right to feel betrayed, used and humiliated.

But because someone made you feel like shit doth not a legal case make.

We cannot expect our judicial system to legislate and define morality.

If we rely on the courts to solve problems of morality, then we’ve abandoned any attempts to instill in our people, in our children, in those who learn from us a set of moral values.

We’re letting the state raise generations of Americans by educating and punishing them at a time that is more than likely too late. We cannot let the state teach and dictate what we should be teaching our children ourselves.

---

Tim Davis is a junior from Carlisle. He is editor of the Opinion Page.