unjust response to rape?

[Athena]

I was googling about rape in matriarchies, and across this:

 

http://www.mensaid.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=5901

 

Seriously I am opposed to rape but the punishment for date rape is way too excessive! I think we should unite and fight for more just laws. Actually I think things are far worse since we announced everyone can have sexual freedom. The laws and policies have become so reactionary, and just plain stupid! When a 16 year old is carrying an identification saying she is 21, and she is drinking, she is getting herself into any trouble she gets into, and it is not a young man who should be severely punished. It is the natural consequences of her bad behavior. As I told my daughter when she lied to me and put herself in rape situation, the rules I gave her are not my rules made up just to have power over her, they are the rules all females must follow. The rules are for our own protection and if we don't follow them, no one can protect us from our failure to protect ourselves.

 

There was a time when we agreed individuals are responsible for their own behavior, and it is not a good thing to attempt to make government overly responsible. We have perversed this. We have perversed the meaning of freedom and liberty, leading our young to believe they can do anything, and then stomp on them heavily with the law if they do something that we self righteously think we can control with law. This is so wrong!

[imatfaal]

Do you have any news stories or case facts to strengthen this argument, or just some wierd hypotheticals from an unusual web-forum?

 

Women should not need to protect themselves from predatory men in a modern society - and it is a travesty that they still are forced into this situation. Whilst it might be sensible to remove oneself from situations of danger this in no way lessens the culpability of the rapist nor places guilt on the shoulders of the victim.

[Ringer]

What's with all this talk about rape lately?

 

Anyway, Athena are you actually saying that because a girl under 21 gets a fake ID it's her fault if she gets date raped? Because I honestly hope that's not what your saying because that could just as easily apply to girls who are 21 and get drunk and date raped. You are right in that people should take responsibility for their actions, but, really, your saying someone should take responsibility that it is their fault for being raped because they were too drunk to fight it off. So then only the one who was raped should take responsibility for their actions.

[Marqq]

Women should not need to protect themselves from predatory men in a modern society - and it is a travesty that they still are forced into this situation. Whilst it might be sensible to remove oneself from situations of danger this in no way lessens the culpability of the rapist nor places guilt on the shoulders of the victim.

 

Now hold on a second, that's not at all what Athena was saying. Everyone needs to act responsibly and follow the law, regardless of gender or age. The situations highlighted by Athena were ones where the 'minor' misrepresented her age illegally, and others where women decided after the fact to withdraw consent. In these situations, I'd say the rapist has become the victim, as rape has not occurred, outside the statutory version. This is the sort of reason why the age of consent was moved to 16. Legally speaking, such cases would be very difficult to point out, and sure, legally distinguishing these circumstances may even encourage predators to push their luck. But, disallowing such distinction gives a poor representation of the real life situations people must deal with.

 

In cases of statutory rape, with well-defined proof of age (defined by actual legislators), there should be a secondary charge. In murder cases, the charge of involuntary manslaughter covers unintentional offenses. I'd propose the possible charge of 'Involuntary Statutory Rape', a charge not requiring registration as a sex-offender, but still carrying a severe penalty. I'm sure charges already exist for the 'victim', for using a fake ID, underage possession/consumption, but perhaps a new charge for 'Impersonating an Adult'? These charges, of course, would require evidence beyond the word of the 'rapist'.

 

In cases of post-coital withdrawal of consent, well...that's quite a bit tougher. In most cases, the only evidence is the word of each party. Courts being biased towards women, of course, tend to rule in their favor with minimal evidence. Sorry, not much I can see to be done here...

 

On a side note, why aren't there legal repercussions for the minors of comparable age that perform statutory rape? I could imagine quite a few of my middle- and high-school classmates that deserved to be on a junior-sex-offender list, ostracized in the same way as adults who committed the same crime. I think harsher punishment for underage sex could have a great influence on adults' tendency to desire teenagers. If they never have sexual relations with teens, then their desire for them may never develop.

[zapatos]

In cases of statutory rape, with well-defined proof of age (defined by actual legislators), there should be a secondary charge. In murder cases, the charge of involuntary manslaughter covers unintentional offenses. I'd propose the possible charge of 'Involuntary Statutory Rape', a charge not requiring registration as a sex-offender, but still carrying a severe penalty. I'm sure charges already exist for the 'victim', for using a fake ID, underage possession/consumption, but perhaps a new charge for 'Impersonating an Adult'? These charges, of course, would require evidence beyond the word of the 'rapist'.

I'm curious about this one. If unintentional, why still carry a severe penalty?

[Athena]

Do you have any news stories or case facts to strengthen this argument, or just some wierd hypotheticals from an unusual web-forum?

 

Women should not need to protect themselves from predatory men in a modern society - and it is a travesty that they still are forced into this situation. Whilst it might be sensible to remove oneself from situations of danger this in no way lessens the culpability of the rapist nor places guilt on the shoulders of the victim.

 

Most assuredly, the concern is not limited to some weird hypothetical web site. It is a major legal concern for everyone, because attitudes and laws have changed and many are not aware of this. Here is another site that some may think is more respectable...

http://www.criminald...s/date-rape.htm

 

women should not need to protect themselves? Why not? Perhaps I should not laugh at the statement that women should not need to protect themselves, but I have been a female for 64 years and well, ah, I think some things come naturally to men, and some things do not. The sexual impulse seems pretty natural to me.

 

The Muslims are not all wrong in assuming women should cover themselves, and should not go to town alone, nor be alone with a man other than her husband. Polynesians and Africans have managed sexual behaviors differently. Perhaps we should not be too judgmental, and try to understand the differences?

I do believe cultures are different and that this differences makes a big difference in how we experience life.

 

I think it is dreadfully wrong to label a young man or young woman a sexual predator and restrict his/her job opportunities and where s/he lives for life, just because s/he had sex with someone who could have been willing but was under age. There is a difference between having a strong sex urge, and a problem with a self control, and being a predator with intent to harm someone. And really folks, how wrong is it to have sex with a willing partner, but too young?

 

Now hold on a second, that's not at all what Athena was saying. Everyone needs to act responsibly and follow the law, regardless of gender or age. The situations highlighted by Athena were ones where the 'minor' misrepresented her age illegally, and others where women decided after the fact to withdraw consent. In these situations, I'd say the rapist has become the victim, as rape has not occurred, outside the statutory version. This is the sort of reason why the age of consent was moved to 16. Legally speaking, such cases would be very difficult to point out, and sure, legally distinguishing these circumstances may even encourage predators to push their luck. But, disallowing such distinction gives a poor representation of the real life situations people must deal with.

 

In cases of statutory rape, with well-defined proof of age (defined by actual legislators), there should be a secondary charge. In murder cases, the charge of involuntary manslaughter covers unintentional offenses. I'd propose the possible charge of 'Involuntary Statutory Rape', a charge not requiring registration as a sex-offender, but still carrying a severe penalty. I'm sure charges already exist for the 'victim', for using a fake ID, underage possession/consumption, but perhaps a new charge for 'Impersonating an Adult'? These charges, of course, would require evidence beyond the word of the 'rapist'.

 

In cases of post-coital withdrawal of consent, well...that's quite a bit tougher. In most cases, the only evidence is the word of each party. Courts being biased towards women, of course, tend to rule in their favor with minimal evidence. Sorry, not much I can see to be done here...

 

On a side note, why aren't there legal repercussions for the minors of comparable age that perform statutory rape? I could imagine quite a few of my middle- and high-school classmates that deserved to be on a junior-sex-offender list, ostracized in the same way as adults who committed the same crime. I think harsher punishment for underage sex could have a great influence on adults' tendency to desire teenagers. If they never have sexual relations with teens, then their desire for them may never develop.

 

Thank you so much. When I came of age, it was made very clear that a female should dress modestly, and there were restrictions on our activities. It was made very clear, a young woman should not be alone with a male. If the warnings given me were not enough to convince me of this, the behavior of the males was! It just makes sense to me that females need to take responsibility for protecting themselves.

 

Why are we so uptight about sex any way? I am really blown away by some of the responses. Why would a girl claim she wasn't willing to have sex, when she dressed for it, and put herself in a situation where things were apt to lead to sex? What is she wanting if it is not sex? (be careful, this is a trick question).

 

The need to define the degree of the sexually inappropriate behavior, is essential to justice. In many cases action should stop with mandatory classes and perhaps some restitution. Sometimes the restitution should go to parents, because the child could be willing and even the instigator. I think we have several social problems involved here, including widespread disrespect of parents, and in general a lack of personal responsibility. I appreciate the discussion. We have shifted personal responsibility to state responsibility, and the state is doing a poor job of dealing with the human problems.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Athena

[Moontanman]

If a man is fooled by a female who is under the age of consent (which i think is so totally arbitrary as to really be meaningless) and that man has consensual sex with that female calling him a rapist is just wrong. (calling him a child molester is criminally slanderous) On the other hand taking advantage of a woman who is drunk or other wise incapacitated is wrong if she is 12 or 112. The idea that a woman is somehow responsible for being raped just because she is dressed immodestly or she is alone or vulnerable in some other way is despicable. I have been a nudist much of my life, there is no reason what so ever to assert that anyone is to blame for having sex forced on them due to being immodestly dressed, this idea of uncontrolled sexual urges is bullshit, it is at the very least a sign of mental illness, sociopath or psychopath would be my guess in some cases but being a part of a society that tells you that is an excuse for rape is also part of the problem, I think this makes that society mentally ill as well. Being sexually attracted to someone is not an excuse for rape, anyone, man or woman who cannot control their sexual urges well enough that simply being in contact with a nude or vulnerable fellow human being is an excuse for forcing sex on them is simply unacceptable. There is no excuse for forcing sex on anyone under any circumstances.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Moontanman

[Ringer]

Most assuredly, the concern is not limited to some weird hypothetical web site. It is a major legal concern for everyone, because attitudes and laws have changed and many are not aware of this. Here is another site that some may think is more respectable...

http://www.criminald...s/date-rape.htm

 

This only talks about what date rape is not about how harsh penalties are or anything you were talking about. Rape is rape and should be treated as such. Statutory rape is a different thing all together. I have had friends, yes multiple friends, be accused of rape for retraction of consent after that fact and, guess what, they were never convicted of rape because that's not rape. I haven't ever really had the fake ID thing come up in but I would assume, unless you have evidence otherwise, that they would not be convicted of statutory rape because they were lead to believe that the female was of age.

 

 

women should not need to protect themselves? Why not? Perhaps I should not laugh at the statement that women should not need to protect themselves, but I have been a female for 64 years and well, ah, I think some things come naturally to men, and some things do not. The sexual impulse seems pretty natural to me.

 

Sexual impulses are completely natural, and so are violent impulses. But by your argument since women should avoid being alone with a male for fear of being raped I could say the same thing about violent impulses. If women should take responsibility for being in a situation that ends with them being raped, a wife should then take responsibility for being beaten because she was around her husband when he was in a bad mood. Both are wrong because the actions are wrong, it doesn't matter if they are 'natural'.

 

On a side note I hate when people bring the word natural into arguments like this. Anything that happens is natural, you show me an example of something natural I can show the exact opposite and it is just as natural as your example.

 

The Muslims are not all wrong in assuming women should cover themselves, and should not go to town alone, nor be alone with a man other than her husband. Polynesians and Africans have managed sexual behaviors differently. Perhaps we should not be too judgmental, and try to understand the differences?

I do believe cultures are different and that this differences makes a big difference in how we experience life.

 

How is that not wrong? Why would you force someone to completely cover themselves instead of expecting someone else to respect them as a person? And not being alone with another man except her husband? So what about people that don't get married? Should they NEVER be alone with a man?

 

I think it is dreadfully wrong to label a young man or young woman a sexual predator and restrict his/her job opportunities and where s/he lives for life, just because s/he had sex with someone who could have been willing but was under age. There is a difference between having a strong sex urge, and a problem with a self control, and being a predator with intent to harm someone. And really folks, how wrong is it to have sex with a willing partner, but too young?

 

I agree that it is dumb to put them on the sexual offenders list for having sex with a willing partner, but they broke the law. It sucks but you also get put on the sex offenders list some places if you pee outdoors. Like most things the offenders list was started with good intentions but ended up just going overboard.

 

 

Thank you so much. When I came of age, it was made very clear that a female should dress modestly, and there were restrictions on our activities. It was made very clear, a young woman should not be alone with a male. If the warnings given me were not enough to convince me of this, the behavior of the males was! It just makes sense to me that females need to take responsibility for protecting themselves.

 

Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's right. I'm sure there are millions of women that think it makes sense to not have to worry about being raped every time they were out.

 

 

Why are we so uptight about sex any way? I am really blown away by some of the responses. Why would a girl claim she wasn't willing to have sex, when she dressed for it, and put herself in a situation where things were apt to lead to sex? What is she wanting if it is not sex? (be careful, this is a trick question).

 

So when a girl goes into a bar with a short skirt on she should be able to be gang raped by all the men in attendance because she was dressed like she wanted to have sex, and drinking at a bar? Obviously this is grossly over-exaggerated but still, how do you dress for sex. Unless you are in lingerie or underwear you are not dressed for sex. And what situations are apt to lead to sex? Hanging out with a man that isn't your husband? If that were true I would have had sex with my fiancee way before we started dating. Your idea of a situation that is apt to lead for sex and being dressed for sex is way different than other peoples. So there could be a man that you are with that thinks that you just hanging out is one of those situations and you have clothes on that he thinks are attractive, is it your fault he raped you even though you didn't think you were putting yourself in that situation?

 

The need to define the degree of the sexually inappropriate behavior, is essential to justice. In many cases action should stop with mandatory classes and perhaps some restitution. Sometimes the restitution should go to parents, because the child could be willing and even the instigator. I think we have several social problems involved here, including widespread disrespect of parents, and in general a lack of personal responsibility. I appreciate the discussion. We have shifted personal responsibility to state responsibility, and the state is doing a poor job of dealing with the human problems.

 

 

What restitution? We are talking about rape, not willing partners. Statutory rape is just a bad term and not what most would think of as rape.

 

 

[Marqq]

I'm curious about this one. If unintentional, why still carry a severe penalty?

For the same reason that involuntary manslaughter carries a severe penalty--the problem of criminal negligence.

 

...I have been a nudist much of my life...

I get it now!! Moon tan...rofl (sorry I didn't quote any of your serious content)

 

I have had friends, yes multiple friends, be accused of rape for retraction of consent after that fact and, guess what, they were never convicted of rape because that's not rape. I haven't ever really had the fake ID thing come up in but I would assume, unless you have evidence otherwise, that they would not be convicted of statutory rape because they were lead to believe that the female was of age.

In cases of rape, even the charge can carry a penalty. I can say for sure that in Iowa, any drug, abuse or sex crime charges precludes a person from adopting any time in the future, as DHS is apparently allowed to discriminate in that way. Also, never assume that the law follows reason....much is often left out in the translation to nonsensical jargon. I couldn't find a full list, but I have found that Michigan does allow for reasonable mistake of age, but Florida does not... The presence of a fake ID does not necessarily offer a defense.

 

How is that not wrong? Why would you force someone to completely cover themselves instead of expecting someone else to respect them as a person? And not being alone with another man except her husband? So what about people that don't get married? Should they NEVER be alone with a man?

The demands of a society shape its laws. Why should people be 'forced' to put locks on their doors or to lock their cars? Everyone knows that B&E and theft are wrong, so why can't we just expect them to respect another person's property? In America, sure, the authorities don't 'force' you to, but the thieves do. If that connection isn't clear enough, ask yourself how many 'stupid-proofing' laws there are... Required warnings as far as the eye can see...there are even web sites dedicated to just that:

Funny Warnings

I couldn't find a site for just the legally required ones, but there are the ones on cigarettes, carbonated beverages, food labeling (including: Contains Nuts on peanut butter!)...although most labeling is in place simply to avoid liability from frivolous lawsuits and is not required by law. Why are companies forced to do that?

[Ringer]

In cases of rape, even the charge can carry a penalty. I can say for sure that in Iowa, any drug, abuse or sex crime charges precludes a person from adopting any time in the future, as DHS is apparently allowed to discriminate in that way. Also, never assume that the law follows reason....much is often left out in the translation to nonsensical jargon. I couldn't find a full list, but I have found that Michigan does allow for reasonable mistake of age, but Florida does not... The presence of a fake ID does not necessarily offer a defense.

 

You are not 'charged' unless you are convicted. Without conviction none of the things you state happen. It's not the presence of the fake ID necessarily, it the act of purposefully fooling someone into believing that the minor is of age. Thus being coerced into having sex with a minor.

 

The demands of a society shape its laws. Why should people be 'forced' to put locks on their doors or to lock their cars? Everyone knows that B&E and theft are wrong, so why can't we just expect them to respect another person's property? In America, sure, the authorities don't 'force' you to, but the thieves do. If that connection isn't clear enough, ask yourself how many 'stupid-proofing' laws there are... Required warnings as far as the eye can see...there are even web sites dedicated to just that:

Funny Warnings

I couldn't find a site for just the legally required ones, but there are the ones on cigarettes, carbonated beverages, food labeling (including: Contains Nuts on peanut butter!)...although most labeling is in place simply to avoid liability from frivolous lawsuits and is not required by law. Why are companies forced to do that?

They aren't forced to put locks on their cars or their doors. I for one never lock my doors, nor do many of the people I know. The warnings, for the most part, aren't there because they are required, they are there to protect the company from being sued. Mostly companies are required to do that because 1.) They can harm people who are unaware what is inside the product 2.) The product can be harmful in general. You do realize that for a very long time most people denied that cigarettes were harmful at all.

 

 

[Athena]

If a man is fooled by a female who is under the age of consent (which i think is so totally arbitrary as to really be meaningless) and that man has consensual sex with that female calling him a rapist is just wrong. (calling him a child molester is criminally slanderous) On the other hand taking advantage of a woman who is drunk or other wise incapacitated is wrong if she is 12 or 112. The idea that a woman is somehow responsible for being raped just because she is dressed immodestly or she is alone or vulnerable in some other way is despicable. I have been a nudist much of my life, there is no reason what so ever to assert that anyone is to blame for having sex forced on them due to being immodestly dressed, this idea of uncontrolled sexual urges is bullshit, it is at the very least a sign of mental illness, sociopath or psychopath would be my guess in some cases but being a part of a society that tells you that is an excuse for rape is also part of the problem, I think this makes that society mentally ill as well. Being sexually attracted to someone is not an excuse for rape, anyone, man or woman who cannot control their sexual urges well enough that simply being in contact with a nude or vulnerable fellow human being is an excuse for forcing sex on them is simply unacceptable. There is no excuse for forcing sex on anyone under any circumstances.

 

I am so glad you said you are a nudist, because that hits on what I was trying to say about the different cultures. It is perfectly normal for some people to be nude, and not have a problem with sexual arousal. However, in cultures where people keep their bodies covered, showing an ankle can cause arousal. I don't think the issue is exactly clothing or lack of it, but how in different cultures, people respond to the exposure of the body differently. Does that make sense.

 

I would not be as judgmental as you about those who have a problem with self control. I helped a friend with a store near a high school, and one young man was so sexually stimulated by his teacher, it was an intense problem for him. My heart went out to him. I don't know why he was like that, but the feeling was so strong, it prevented from him thinking of anything else. Certainly his studies suffered, because sex was so much on his mind. This is a hormonal thing, as well as a mental thing, and young people don't have a lot of experience for dealing with their feelings, nor all the thoughts more mature people have. For God's sake, we get much more concerned with the law as we age, and I think we should be much more tolerant of youthful folly than some here seem to be.

 

It is not just youth who can be overwhelmed by feelings that lead to sex with perhaps the wrong person. Such as the teachers who are charged with being inaproperiate with a student. ( wonder if this is made clear in college classes for teachers?) There have been a few dramatic cases where female teachers were so infatuated with student their personal emotional termoil lasted for years. My God, when this happens, it is so obvious counseling is needed. May be I am too liberal, but I keep thinking "there but for the grace of God go I". We are so complex and I prefer understanding to knee jerk judgments and punishment.

 

Then with understanding, for sure, there are some who should never be around minors. For these, it makes sense to put restrictions on where they live and what jobs they do. But we should be more discriminating on who had just a moment of bad judgment, (keep in mind, the guy probably drank too much too) and who will be troubled with inarppropriate feelings for many years and possibly for life. And then I feel sorry for these people, just as I would sorry for someone with cancer. We have to be realistic and we have to protect society from people who have problems, but darnit, we can be compassionate when someone has a problem, and we can be more just by deciding who is likely to repeat a crime and who is not. All rapes are not monstrous, hostile acts, and I tend to believe the very harsh laws are the result of men hating, hostile females, and overly self righteous males, having too much political power.

 

On the other hand, if a male gets more than two females pregnant without the ability to support the women and children, I would recommend sterilization, and the same for a woman. The act of sex, just is not that terrible, and we should stop creating as intolerably terrible. I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about it. But having children without the being responsible for them is a terrible thing. Knowingly transmitting a sexual disease is also a terrible thing.

 

You are not 'charged' unless you are convicted. Without conviction none of the things you state happen. It's not the presence of the fake ID necessarily, it the act of purposefully fooling someone into believing that the minor is of age. Thus being coerced into having sex with a minor.

 

 

They aren't forced to put locks on their cars or their doors. I for one never lock my doors, nor do many of the people I know. The warnings, for the most part, aren't there because they are required, they are there to protect the company from being sued. Mostly companies are required to do that because 1.) They can harm people who are unaware what is inside the product 2.) The product can be harmful in general. You do realize that for a very long time most people denied that cigarettes were harmful at all.

 

 

 

You are incorrect. Being charged with a crime is what comes before anything else. Being charged with a sex crime can have terrible consequences, even if the person is found innocent. A teacher's or politician careers be ruined just by the charge. Parents can loose their children, because their children can be taken, without even a trail to prove guilt, and they can be denied visits too. I knew a man who was denied visits with his children for many years, because he was accused of molesting his daughter. Several years later he was given his children, because it was determined the guy his X wife was living with, was the one who molested the girls.

 

Stores lock up cigarettes because people steal them. Obesity is very harmful and we push the products that lead to obesity. Cigarettes help to prevent weight gain, and in some cases are better for a person if this person is likely to be obese without them. Now this is totally off subject, but should anyone be allowed to promote a product that can be harmful? Should schools have vending machines loaded with pop and candy? Just how far should our laws go to protect us from ourselves? Back on subject- I remember when TV put and movies put husbands and wives in separate beds, and many words were taboo. We promote sex in advertizing and TV and movies use sex to attract audiences. Hum, may be this isn't as off topic as I thought.

 

PS warnings on products are not ridiculous. Especially not for products with peanuts or peanut oils, because peanuts are deadly for some people. Ignorance can be deadly.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Athena

[Ringer]

You are incorrect. Being charged with a crime is what comes before anything else. Being charged with a sex crime can have terrible consequences, even if the person is found innocent. A teacher's or politician careers be ruined just by the charge. Parents can loose their children, because their children can be taken, without even a trail to prove guilt, and they can be denied visits too. I knew a man who was denied visits with his children for many years, because he was accused of molesting his daughter. Several years later he was given his children, because it was determined the guy his X wife was living with, was the one who molested the girls.

 

I was mistaken and I apologize for that. I agree that some people are unjustly treated differently because of being charged, but not convicted, of the crime, but that is a different conversation all together than the actual legal repercussions that are dealt out. Unless I am, again, mistaken that is what the topic of this thread is.

 

Stores lock up cigarettes because people steal them. Obesity is very harmful and we push the products that lead to obesity. Cigarettes help to prevent weight gain, and in some cases are better for a person if this person is likely to be obese without them. Now this is totally off subject, but should anyone be allowed to promote a product that can be harmful? Should schools have vending machines loaded with pop and candy? Just how far should our laws go to protect us from ourselves? Back on subject- I remember when TV put and movies put husbands and wives in separate beds, and many words were taboo. We promote sex in advertizing and TV and movies use sex to attract audiences. Hum, may be this isn't as off topic as I thought.

 

PS warnings on products are not ridiculous. Especially not for products with peanuts or peanut oils, because peanuts are deadly for some people. Ignorance can be deadly.

 

I apologize if it's just me but I don't see how this changes my point.

[Green Xenon]

I was googling about rape in matriarchies, and across this:

 

http://www.mensaid.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=5901

 

Seriously I am opposed to rape but the punishment for date rape is way too excessive! I think we should unite and fight for more just laws. Actually I think things are far worse since we announced everyone can have sexual freedom. The laws and policies have become so reactionary, and just plain stupid! When a 16 year old is carrying an identification saying she is 21, and she is drinking, she is getting herself into any trouble she gets into, and it is not a young man who should be severely punished. It is the natural consequences of her bad behavior. As I told my daughter when she lied to me and put herself in rape situation, the rules I gave her are not my rules made up just to have power over her, they are the rules all females must follow. The rules are for our own protection and if we don't follow them, no one can protect us from our failure to protect ourselves.

 

There was a time when we agreed individuals are responsible for their own behavior, and it is not a good thing to attempt to make government overly responsible. We have perversed this. We have perversed the meaning of freedom and liberty, leading our young to believe they can do anything, and then stomp on them heavily with the law if they do something that we self righteously think we can control with law. This is so wrong!

 

 

Sort of off-topic but I will add if society accuses a child of rape/molestation and mistreats him as a result of the stigma, then the child will suffer the same psychological and neurological trauma he would suffer from being raped/molested.

 

Personally I think that if an adult accuses a pre-adolescent boy of molesting a girl, then that adult is as sick as a pedophile.

[Athena]

How about if we return to the notion that no one has sex outside of marriage? That may sound Puritanical, but seriously, saying we have sexual freedom and than making up laws and punishments as we have been doing is better than Puritanism how?

 

I have not said a male or female must be fully clothed to avoid unwanted sex. I think nudism might be a better to go. Seriously! In the past a woman showing an ankle was very erotic but today, she can show her bare arms and legs and no one thinks of it. On some islands, people think no more of a woman going topless than we think of them baring their arms and legs. I have heard nudist camps are very civilized and perhaps we would actually reduce sex crimes by becoming nudist.

 

Why is it so intolerable for woman if a man takes advantage of her? Seriously? It is really that much worse than the banker taking advantage of a person's need for a loan, or a home? Why? We have become worse than the Puritans, because we are branding people for life for something that isn't that bad. Why are we doing this and defending it? What of being understanding and compassionate regarding young people?