I agree Amy. When we say that a woman can sometimes bear some responsibility for being raped, we are not suggesting for a second that she bears any moral culpability.

Point two. We are not morally educating people like we used to. Males in particular need strong moral male figures in their lives. And girls also need strong fathers in their lives or they will seek that in inappropriate relationships.

ìIt's the actual truth about why some men rape that will have the greatest influence on whether or not they do, and on whether or not women can avoid being raped (and feeling stigmatized if they are).î

How is that? Are you really suggesting that if people across the board were to agree to accept Thornhill and Palmerís theory about rape, men would stop raping? Itís funny (not really), but Thornhill and Palmer seem to be throwing up a rethinking of the classic, ìAll Men Are Rapists.î How is this not a step on the road to ìShe asked for it?î

Also, Iím not sure how women are stigmatized by the argument that rape is, most often, an act of violence. Wouldnít you agree that women are stigmatized primarily by how the crime is reacted to by the systemÖ the idea that it is a crime that belongs in the shadows and that a woman must be protected from public exposure as though she is too destroyed by the crime to have the strength of, say, the family of a murdered child?

Rape is an incredibly difficult crime to define. But the idea that ìonly excessive force is a possible indication of violent motivationî is unmitigated bullshit. Firstly, I think you would have to agree that putting a gun or knife is someoneís face is a serious act of violence. Or does a criminal have to pull the trigger in order to prove violent motivation?

But more on point, the coercing of consent is a long established male goal. Where is the line? The greatest show of power is to get what one wants without excessive forceÖ regardless of real consent. Like you, Amy, I am not fan of people whining about their choices after the fact. Most of the time, we are active participants in our victimization. But the slope is slippery on both sides.

Of course, "the patriarchy," violent TV shows, and nasty old American cultureî are not the source of rape. And there is a difference between a drunk 22 year old who wakes up to find that she has had intercourse, remembering only that she stripped naked and started foreplay in some frat boyís bed before passing out and a woman who is walking down a street and has a knife put to her throat and, ultimately, Kobe and his accuser. But the inability of traditional dogmatists to see past their own lies is hardly a reason to promote dogma on the opposite side. Every case has its own lifeÖ its own motivesÖ itís own facts.

Men have consensual sex for sexís sake, for love, for procreation, for power, for violence, etc, etc, etc. The same is true of rape. But riddle me thisÖ is forcing someone else do something they do not want to do a form of violence? For me, yes. And it doesnít matter whether the force is physical or emotional, with a loved one or a stranger. You can quit your job. You can end a relationship. But rape involves, by its definition, a lack of choice, not just an emotional inability to make a choice, as with most things.

Was that girl idiotic to be in Kobeís room after midnight if she wasnít looking for sex? Of course. But if Kobe forced her into a non-consensual sex act, he too has to be responsible for the circumstances and for how he chose to use his powerÖ not only his power to control someone physically, but the power of his charm and fame.

I get a strong ìI am powerful and smart and I will not be labeled a victimî vibe from you, Amy. And I respect that. But not everyone has gotten to that point in their lives. And while everyone irritatingly seems to choose to be a victim these days, it does not mean that there are not victims. It does not mean that having your power taken away from you, whether male or female, is not devastating. It has nothing to do with logic. And it never will.

David, it's a shame when women are raped. This isn't meant to trivialize their suffering. But society has limited resources of law enforcement, prosecution and pure insight with which to respond. Shouldn't we concentrate on cases where it's clearest that the woman's own conduct played no role in her rape?

There's nothing wrong with asking people to take reasonable steps to protect themselves... And to protect you and me from having to serve on a jury for he said/she said trial. If you stay out of hotel rooms with strangers, you won't get raped there.

I think bringing the (psychotherapeutically loaded) words 'victimization' and 'dogma' into this discussion belittles the practicality of Alkon's posture, which seems to be about responsibility and not about nuanced measures of interior condition.

I don't want to have to deal with the slippery slopes of others. IOW, "my inner child has trouble playing with other inner children."

I don't think anyone's denying that there's an element of violence to rape. But the hardcore feminist line has always been that "Rape is not about sex, it's about violence." IT IS ABOUT SEX -- how can it not be? It is a form of sex -- the nonconsensual form. To say that it isn't is like saying murder is not about death, or that mugging is not about coveting your neighbor's goods. All involve violence -- and frequently a power-trip on the part of the perp -- but that isn't the only thing they're about. Most male rapists do have a hard-on, which means they're sexually aroused, and thus the crime is at least somewhat about sex.

"Society has limited resources of law enforcement, prosecution and pure insight with which to respond. Shouldn't we concentrate on cases where it's clearest that the woman's own conduct played no role in her rape?"

Again... please think about that statement.

The answer to your question has to be "no" or there is no law at all. And that is the trouble with law. It requires that you go through the whole shebang every time in order for it to remain fair.

But focus even closer... "the woman's own conduct played no role in her rape."

So, rape only exists when the victimization is absolute? Now we're back to "Did you see what she's wearing?"

As I wrote before, I respect Amy and I am sure that he intention is not to send all rape victims who did not have a weapon pressed to their flesh into the closet, blaming themselves. But that is the road we end up going down when we start to attach what "we know" to the court of law. This is not to suggest that the legal system is infallible. But I'm not ready to give up the appeal process for people we "know" are guilty. And I'm not ready to have anyone outside of a courtroom where protective rules are well in place determine whether a date rape is rape or not. I do believe that sometimes an accused rape is not a rape... even if the woman has convinced herself otherwise. Male intent and female communication are critical to making this determination. But as soon as we decide to allow this determination to be made in the press, on a web log, or on a bar stool, the end is nigh.

It requires that you go through the whole
shebang every time in order for it to
remain fair.

I disagree. This disagreement has no features: It's polished and shiny.

Go to the courthouse and tell me how there are no limits to legal resources. To hell with the prosecutors and the prosecuted: Talk to one of the tens of thousands of LA County taxpayers who's lost considerable income this year to provide jury service that was never exploited (I are one). Or go down to the 'hood, where it's the oldest saw in the citadel: There's never a cop around when you need one. But there's still plenty of law! And there'd be more for the wronged if we had less for the naive.

He said/she said has been going on for thousands of years. There haven't been any breakthroughs in the field lately. Giving more time to it WON'T HELP.

If you're "not ready to give up the process," then YOU can take time from work to serve as jurist. YOU can pay the taxes for the police, lawyers, and judiciary. And you can give your diciest intuition to the matter of when a seduction becomes rape, arguing the point with eleven people who are going to be equally precious about their shadings of truth. And you can leave me out of it.

Alkon's principle costs nothing but her own girlish illusions about human nature. It saves you and me a whole of lot trouble. It's "the end" of nothing you're going to miss.

Here's the point we're all confused on.
Are you saying girls with double d cups can't walk down the street without a knife being pulled them while a girl with a training bra can walk down the street alone at midnight unharmed?
Or are saying girls with double d bras will get invited to parties where a ruffie will be slipped into their 3rd beer while the girl with the training bra will sit at home on Saturday night, not being raped?

Are you on crack or are you just trying to simulate the effects of a near-total lack of reading comprehension?