of the Women’s Studies department atnMount Holyoke, for example, has instructednher students that rape is “anynunwanted sexual contact.” A Novembern1991 Teen magazine author obfuscates,nbut tries to leave the impressionnthat rape is considerably less invasiventhan it is. As she writes in an ardclentitled “Acquaintance Rape,” “if someonenyou know does something sexuallynto you against your will, then you havenbeen violated.” But Susan Brownmiller’sndefinition, as put forth in hern1975 book Against Our Will, stillnseems the most accurate: “If a womannchooses not to have intercourse with anspecific man and the man chooses tonproceed against her will, that is ancriminal act of rape.”nThe payoffs for promoters of a loosendefinifion of rape are threefold. First,nthey can use the redefinition to exaggeratenthe number of rape victims so asnto include nearly every female; virtuallynevery heterosexual male, not just thenpoor and minority convicts who endnup in prison, might therefore be consideredna rapist. Second, they can preemptnany queries as to the accuser’sncredibility by hurling epithets such asn”sexist” and “insensitive” at those whonwant a closer look at her story. Thosenwho fail to rush to condemn the accusedntherefore play into feministnhands. Finally, because their promiscuousnaccusations have so diluted thenimpact of the word “rape,” feministsncan indignantiy complain that the malenpower structure does not take “rapenvictims” seriously.n;^:..:^.in” «ii)*- u.n^ a ^nThe legal definition of rape variesnslightiy from state to state, but at anminimum the law requires the state tonprove beyond a reasonable doubt thatnthe accused knowingly or intentionallynhad sexual intercourse with a membernof the opposite sex when that personnwas compelled by force or was deemednincapable of giving consent to such annact. Proof of the elements cannot benfudged. In other vyords, holding a girlfriend’snhand against her will is notn46/CHRONICLESnrape. Seduction, however irresponsiblynengaged in, is not rape. Feminist lobbying,nhowever, has had an impact. InnIndiana, as well as in some other states,nthe law now allows prosecution of anhusband for the rape of his wife,nthough a charge of assault more accuratelyndescribes the act. Some statenlegislatures have taken this idea so farnthat, as stated in Missouri law, even “anwoman can be guilty of rape under thisnprovision.”nIt seems reasonable enough to requirensome sort of evidence that all ofnthe elements of this violent crime havenbeen committed before sentencing anperson to prison. Yet the modern feministnresponds to this observation withntwo retorts: one, that rape is whatever Insay it is, and two, that an accusationnshould be tantamount to a conviction.nConsequentiy, most legislatures, lookingnfor that rare opportunity to appealnto both their law-and-order and feministnconstituencies, have rigged thenrules of evidence so that those accusednof rape cannot present to a jury evidencenin their defense. The “rapenshield statutes” prohibit the defensenfrom submitting relevant evidence ofnthe prosecutrix’s past sexual conductnand are particulady dangerous becausena conviction for rape can rest on thentestimony of the accuser without anyncorroborating physical evidence. Designedninitially to avoid planting thennotion in the juror’s mind that a womannwith an active sexual history is eithernmore likely to lie under oath or to givenconsent to sexual activity than a personnwithout such a history, trial courts nownroutinely deny defendants the right tonrebut the state’s case. Evidence showingntheir accuser’s bias, and in somenstates even evidence of past consensualnsex between the accuser and accused,nis often prohibited.nCourts justify such outrages by invokingna “societal interest” in seeingnthat victims feel protected enough bynthe judicial system to report sex crimes.nAs one federal judge pontificated inn1991, “The right of a petitioner tonpresent relevant and competent evidencenis not absolute and may bow tonaccommodate other interests in thencriminal trial process.” Other than determiningnguilt or innocence based onnrelevant and competent evidence?nFurthermore, even the exceptional bitnof admissible evidence that will revealnnnthe prosecutrix’s past sexual conductnmust overcome all sorts of proceduralnhurdles of advance notice and specialnhearings in order to get before a jury.nArguing that rape is grossly underreported,nthe supposedly antiestablishmentnfeminists have used their leveragenwith the government to bolster thenpower of the state over the criminalndefendant. But some evidence suggestsnthat rape may be an overreportedncrime. Ask Gary Dotson, who servedn12 years in prison (four of them afternthe prosecutrix recanted) for a rape hendid not commit, if women fear alertingnauthorities to this crime. The MarionnCounty (Indianapolis) Justice Agencynreports that only slightiy more than halfnof Class A (using a deadly weapon orndeadly force) rape cases resulted innconviction in 1990, and only 28 of 82nClass B, frequently acquaintancenrapes, resulted in conviction during thensame period, with 31 of them resultingnin acquittal or dismissal. Yet, a booknaimed at teenagers entitled Date Rape,nby Frances Shuker-Haines, advises,n”Your job is to believe your friendn[when she says she has been raped]. Ifnshe feels she was raped, she was raped.nDon’t question it.”nWhile a source of satisfaction tonfeminists, the rape shield statutes applynin criminal trials only. For example,nnewspapers and attorneys bringing civilndefamation suits can ignore these statutesnin their quest for relevant andncompetent evidence pertaining to thenparties’ behavior. Three years ago, Ms.nreported that males accused of rapenwere filing suits for defamation of character,nintentional infliction of emotionalndistress, and malicious prosecutionnagainst their accusers. The woman’snsexual history will be fair game in suchnsuits.nBut the First Amendment is the realnsource of feminist distress in rape cases.nFeminists want the accuser’s identitynsuppressed by the media for the reasonsnthe rest of us want it published:nher identity is relevant to asse.ssing thenintegrity of her charges and her moralncharacter, otherwise known as herncredibility. Commentators from lawand-ordernprosecutors to left-wingnwriters have beseeched the media to laynoff accusers, explaining, as did the U.S.nAttorney for the Southern District ofnIndiana, “The ultimate issue of guilt orninnocence is one for a jury, which hasn