We live in a world with 24 hour news access. Things happened when I was a kid. We had a pedophile living on our block, so it happened back then too. The problem today is that these stories saturate the news programs. While its less likely to be hurt by a stranger than a loved one, certain stories stick out in the news that make parents fearful. We also live in a very judgmental society where God forbid something happens to a kid, you have every neighbor selling his story on the news telling how the parents were neglectful in some way. I have always taught my children to be polite and friendly. My only rule about strangers, man or woman, was to not get close enough to someone in a car to get grabbed, and not to go off with a stranger in a local park or school. I try to teach my children to trust their gut when it comes to people and interactions. My belief has always been that most people are good and the few bad apples ruin it. When I was a kid, store owners new us and would report bad behavior to our parents. I make a point of being friendly with my local store owners and neighbors. Hillary Clinton took a lot of slack for her It Takes a Village to rais a child bit, but there is some truth and necessity in knowing your village.

I think this is a little bit overwrought. Parents are more fearful than they were 20 yrs ago, but I still know a lot of parents who let their kids play in the streets and talk to other adults, even men.

However, I was reading "Dear Abby" the other day, about letting a young boy, age 7, go to the men's bathroom by himself, and it was interesting how people were advising the mom to stand outside and constantly talk to her son, or have him carry a whistle, and one parent even suggested she buy a two way radio set so she could constantly communicate with her son in the bathroom. To me, that seemed extreme. I know there have been a few cases of young boys attacked in public restrooms, but you have to eventually let them go in by themselves.

Yet, these days, no man who even speaks to a child is safe from accusations of pedophilia.

While I'm no longer doing so due to a much more intense work schedule, not long ago, not long ago I spent a number of years coaching high schoolers, both boys and girls.

I never thought twice about giving my kids hugs when celebrating a win, or putting an arm around one who was upset about something. I never thought twice about talking privately with one of them when they had an issue that they needed to talk about with an adult they could trust. I sometimes gave kids rides home from practice, because if I didn't, they wouldn't have been able to participate. I was at times alone with a kid. I teased them. I'm sure they heard me swear.

Being a coach was a great experience. I cherish those memories. We moved recently, and even though we zealously got rid of all the junk we don't use, I couldn't bring myself to get rid of one of the less-than-attractive "Successories" knick-knacks my girls who won a state championship gave me.

In these litigious times, where men who work with kids are often suspect automatically, I probably did hundreds of things that put me potentially in harm's way from some frivolous accusation. But I was a great coach, part of which involves being there for kids who just need the ear of an adult who isn't a teacher or parent. I helped make a difference in some lives.

It sucks that doing things the way that I did, the way some of my coaches did, the way that I think is right, probably could have put me at risk of a false accusation. But fuck it. What else was I supposed to do? A shitty job?

Yes, it is getting insane. People are getting more and more isolated from each other. Can't be good in the long run.

Tell men for two generations that they, collectively, are demons, not heroic protectors, and, 'lo and behold, they start to believe, and internalize, it! So, all of society suffers.

One of the costs of feminism that no one wants to acknowledge.

This has nothing to do with feminism. It's simple statistics. Males are more likely to be sexual predators with child victims. You can't blame feminism for that, nor can you blame parents from processing that information and being more cautious around males than females.

Currently, Muslims or people of Arabic descent are more likely be terrorists and try to blow up a plane, so if I'm on a plane with a Muslim male and he's acting kind of strange, am I being prejudiced or anti-male to be more nervous around him than, let's say, an Irish grandmother? No. I'm simply processing the facts into an appropriate concern. And, chances are, I don't need to be worried, but that doesn't stop me from worrying.

The issue for us parents is how to respond to that worry without overprotecting our children.

I think the real problem is that we aren't teaching our kids to worry for themselves. If little Johnny grows up never being in a public bathroom without mom on a walkie-talkie, he's not developing that street-smart, gut instinct that warns him of danger. We're forcing our parental judgement of a safe environment/safe person rather than gradually letting kids have enough freedom to make those judgements independently. And that's not really doing the job of a parent, which is to teach them to be on their own in a dangerous world.

At 5 mine are just starting to play out front alone, with the front door open. My main concern is traffic. Yes, they know never to go in the street, but...they're kids. And people drive too damn fast in neighborhoods with the stupid cells to their ears.

My rational brain is always working on overpowering the irrational "somethings going to happen" part of my brain. It won't go down without a fight.

Males may be more likey to be conviced lovelysoul, but given the number of female teacher molesting their students who arent even charged you can hardly claim that the reaserch into which sex is more likely to be molesters is unbiased, and that is due to feminism.

Women are far more likey to physically abuse children, but you always excuse that - but has anyone ever done any reasearch into how pedophiles were treated by their parents?

And incedetally LS no one said feminism was responisble for pedophilia Jay R was saying feminism is responible for the perception that all men are just waiting to snatch chuldren off the streets

"This has nothing to do with feminism."

You're sweet, LS, but naive. Too bad. One can't protect oneself from that which they are unable, or unwilling, to perceive.

"Jay R was saying feminism is responible for the perception that all men are just waiting to snatch chuldren off the streets"

Hey, thanks, Lu! Even more, I was saying that because men KNOW they have become feminism's "usual suspects," they are LESS likely to intervene to help a child in need. A societal tragedy. But that's ok, since it makes women feel better about themselves!

"This has nothing to do with feminism."

You're sweet, LS, but naive. Too bad. One can't protect oneself from that which they are unable, or unwilling, to perceive.

"Jay R was saying feminism is responible for the perception that all men are just waiting to snatch chuldren off the streets"

Hey, thanks, Lu! Even more, I was saying that because men KNOW they have become feminism's "usual suspects," they are LESS likely to intervene to help a child in need. A societal tragedy. But that's ok, since it makes women feel better about themselves!

Ooooooopsie!

You guys always point to the teacher seductions, which are only a miniscule fraction of molestations - if they can even be called that since the boys were also pursuing the women, and one even married her (and is still happily married). Boys and girls are clearly different.

It is, without question, more of concern for males sexually-molesting children. I think that is the basis for most parents concern. Yes, females physically abuse too, but usually it's their own children. A parent still must be cautious that their female teacher, daycare worker, or anyone, male or female, entrusted with the care of their child, isn't abusive. But the real fear for most parents is the stranger abduction or attack by a pedophile, which are almost always male.

"But the real fear for most parents is the stranger abduction or attack by a pedophile, which are almost always male."

True, LS, true. (But then virtually all of the instances where children have been cut from their murdered mothers' wombs have had female perpetrators. Hmmmm. What do you think that proves?)

But, LS, the danger of the "strange man" has always been true, hasn't it? What is different now is that men who look only to do good (the vast, vast majority, wouldn't you agree?), have become less likely to act as the protector of a child in need.

I think this is yet another of feminism's pernicious effects on our society. You disagree. Ok, then, to what do you attribute this unfortunate change in good men's behavior?

feminism is responible for the perception that all men are just waiting to snatch chuldren off the streets

It's been feminists who have promoted the idea that abnormal sexual behaviors - incest, pedophilia, rape - are actually on a continuum of normal male sexual behavior. This is pretty well established in the their literature, and its a model that's been adopted in the social work and victims advocacy communities.

But I don't blame feminism. I think that feminists have formalized assumptions about male sexuality that are held by many women. And I suspect that this is one reason that it's often so hard to reason with women about the actuality of the risks posed by pedophiles - because deep down, they really do believe that it could be any man.

It's the media, Jay R. I think Kristen is right. We hear about every abduction, molestation, and child-killing, ad nauseum, for weeks. Remember, we used to only have 3 TV channels and get news twice a day. Now, the many media outlets have to fill so much time, so you have people like Nancy Grace airing a show every night about poor little Casey (killed by her mother in that one).

It makes us all more paranoid and thinking about it happening to us or our children. If I was pregnant, I would certainly be more wary of any woman who seemed desperate for a baby and put extra effort into befriending me. But back when I was pregnant, I'd never heard of such a crime! They probably happened, but I was blissfully unaware.

So, it's both good and bad. If I had been targeted by some baby-stealing nut, I would've been too clueless to even be suspicious of her. It's good that we know more to perhaps protect ourselves in such a situation, but bad that we may become needlessly afraid.

LS boy and girls are different, were always being tod that girls brains mature more rapidly yet a 45 yr old man sleeping with a 17yr old girl will get more than 3x the prison sentance of a 40yr old woman sleeping with a 12yr old boy - explain that

And Jack your delusional, you say feminist claim abberent sexual behavior is normal for men, but you dont blame them for promoting such a hateful flat out lie.

Tell me were i to beat you with a baseball bat would you say "no big deal" and walk off?

I seriously doubt it. So why do you say nothing as, according to you, feminists are saying its expected for men to be monsters?

I hate it when this happens and it happens almost every time. What starts as an interesting discussion quickly turns into a tit-for-tat bitch fest between a few regulars about who is more evil, men or women. It is really annoying in this case because it's totally irrelevant.

Lovelysoul, you said, "This has nothing to do with feminism" which is true but then you contradicted yourself when you said, "Males are more likely to be sexual predators with child victims." So what? It may be true but children are abducted for many other reasons, often by women.

More importantly, child abductors and molesters are a tiny minority of the human race. The majority of men (and women) are decent human beings and it is not right to teach children to be afraid of them. Or do you not agree that most men are decent?

Jay R, everything you said is wrong for this reason: Parents are not telling their children, "Be afraid of strange men but if a strange woman offers you a peice of candy and asks you to get in her car, go for it."

Children are being taught to be afraid of everything: men, women, other children, animals, loud noises, toys, candy, food, everything. Of course, the parents are being taught the same thing.

"...a 45 yr old man sleeping with a 17yr old girl will get more than 3x the prison sentance of a 40yr old woman sleeping with a 12yr old boy - explain that"

The only explanation is that the boy likes it and the girl doesn't. Yes, we're not supposed to weigh that, but it weighs in jurur's minds in such cases all the same. Juries are made up of men and women, and, quite honestly, men think they would love it if the hot teacher or an older woman wanted to sleep with their adolescent selves. In both the male and female mind, less of a crime has been committed, especially if the boy was pursuing the woman just as ardently.

We've discussed this before. If there's no emotional trauma, is it a crime? If a 10 yr old tribal girl is happy to be married off to a 45 yr old elder, is it really a crime? In her culture, no. She doesn't consider having sex with him "bad" or a loss of something precious...maybe it's even seen as a loss of something good. Maybe she achieves higher status.

But in our culture, and others, where girls are considered "damaged goods" with the loss of virginity, whereas boys are considered studs, the reaction is going to be quite different between boys and girls, as well as the parents of those boys and girls. The girl will likely suffer emotional trauma and shame and the boy may experience pride and greater self-esteem. Therefore, it's harder to view what happened to the boy as equal in criminality to what happened to the girl.

However, if it's a male pedophile molesting a boy, then the boy is likely to suffer trauma. And, in those cases, you see much stronger prosecutions.

I don't make the rules or even necessarily agree with them, but you asked me to explain the difference, and I believe that's the deep-down truth that no one admits.

> We also live in a very
> judgmental society

Not nearly judgmental enough! We want people to make the best judgments they can, and as fast as they can. Furthermore, there's no 'society' that isn't judgmental, and I know of none that judge character better than the United States. I, or any reader of this blog, can list a few that are infinitely worse.

Nothing good comes from scolding people about judgment, as the church would a fornicator. (Most people agree that senselessly 'turning the other cheek' is one of contemporaru Christianity's worst, if most thinly applied, doctrines.) I think the only reason this has become such a popular chatting point it that people want some wiggle room to make themselves feel better about their weaknesses, and to coo that were all the same under the skin.

But we're not! Some people have really great judgment. I want to be one of those.

> Tell men for two generations
> that they, collectively, are
> demons, not heroic protectors,
> and, 'lo and behold, they start
> to believe

Not only that– Fatherly behavior is much less powerful a natural impulse than the urge to motherhood. Telling men they're not to be trusted with an unpleasant chore has the results we'd expect.

Thank you, Gordon. I also hate it when the discussion veers into a man vs. woman and which gender is more evil discussion. I blame the media saturation, but parents need to take responsibility. I have a friend who I will no longer get together with because she overreacts to every situation. She actually told my daughter one night that we forgot to close the shades that we were letting evil stalkers peer in and to never forget to shut them again or she'd get kidnapped. My daughter is 11. After I ripped her a new asshole, I told her to stay away.
As a singe mother I take my children to many things on my own. I always taught them what to do if we became separated. I tell them to go to a police officer, a worker in uniform, or a parent with children. It amazes me the amount of parents that do not teach their children this and claim that it is because they never let go of their hands. As if hands being held means that it is never possible to get separated in a large crowd.
I still say that the majority of people are good and worthy of being trusted, especially where children are concerned. Nancy Grace and the rest of these news shows just beat it to death. There are no new facts in the Casey Anthony case and yet she is still on talking nightly as though that mother is out there trying to get our kids. I really do believe that is a big part of the distrust nowadays and while men get it worse, it goes towards a general distrust of people period.

The only explanation is that the boy likes it and the girl doesn't.

If the girl doesn't like it, it's a sexual assault. Statutory rape is consensual by definition. Also keep in mind that while juries determine guilt, they don't impose sentences. So the disparity in sentencing can't be explained by the jurors' mindsets.

I think that the simple answer is deterrence. It's recognized that there's a significantly greater likelyhood of one type than the other and the sentences applied reflect this estimate.

LS said: "The only explanation is that the boy likes it and the girl doesn't."

Yeah, I stopped buying that line many years back. One amusing reason being hearing my mother talk about her and her girlfriend back in high school (early 60s) having "the hots" for their older male science teacher and laughing about it now at a reunion.

Boys and girls are different... but "girls mature faster than boys!" is sold as gospel every day yet we have to protect the poor widdle nymphs from getting knocked up by the eevil men or boys. Tell that to the boys who were statuatorily raped and end up with a child support bill from their adult lover or worse find out 12 years later its their kid(or that it even exists) and they've gotta pay till the kid is 18. See the Alexander Shire case in MI.

And don't give me the line about the consequences of pregnancy... "her body, her choice", the morning after pill etc. negates that.

" "...a 45 yr old man sleeping with a 17yr old girl will get more than 3x the prison sentance of a 40yr old woman sleeping with a 12yr old boy - explain that"

The only explanation is that the boy likes it and the girl doesn't. Yes, we're not supposed to weigh that, but it weighs in jurur's minds in such cases all the same. " - Lovelysoul

LS, you seem to think that juries decide sentences. They don't. Juries only decide guilt or innocence. Oops. Your credibility just died. May it rest in peace though.

Jury bias would not explain the sentencing disparity. If juries are more likely to acquit female sex offenders, then presumably the only women convicted would be those who commit the worst types of offences and therefore they should still receive high sentences.

Again, Crid, we quibble over words. Of course we should hope that people have good judgment. That is not the same as people being judgmental. We live in sue happy society where there is always someone waiting to point a finger at somebody else. There seems to be no room for human error any longer. This is part of the hysteria that also makes some men afraid to intervene where children are concerned.
Its not about a Christian attitude of turning the other cheek. Its about knowing our neighbors and being connected instead of this disconnected society we've become where neighbors will sell out other neighbor's secrets for their shot on the news.

Actually, most of those cases don't even go to juries. They're plead out, just like the one really hot teacher case was. The mom didn't want the boy to have to testify, so SHE urged the prosecuters to give the teacher a plea deal with probation and they agreed. Would that have happened in the case of a male - either that the parent would ask or that the request would be granted? Probably not.

What I should've said is that all men and women involved in these case, who make the decisions regarding everything from prosecution to sentencing, from judges on down, are influenced by the same underlying view - that boys have sex with females because they WANT to. Despite whatever they might say openly, many judges and prosecuters view it as a less serious offense.

This view is also supported by the fact that boys, unlike girls, can't really have sex without being physically aroused.

But, usually, it is the parents outrage that is at issue. You're missing my point about loss of status. A girl's parents are going to be more upset about these situations because, in their opinion, their daughter has been shamed (even if she was pursuing the teacher), and parents of girls guard their virginity and sexual purity much more closely than they usually do their sons. So, the parents are often the ones that push for harsher punishments and no plea deals.

On the other hand, we just had a case here in FL where the mother not only knew her 14 yr old son was fooling around with his teacher, she dropped him off at her house and considered them a couple. The prosecuters were considering charging her with child neglect in that case, but I imagine it probably got dropped with a wink and a nod.

You may not like what I'm saying, but it's true. This is one very obvious area where BOTH men's and women's perception of the difference between males and females effects the outcome.

Did you really just argue that physical arousal negates rape?

You seem to have a total disconnect here LS men are not charged with statutory rape unless the girl was willing, if the girl wasnt willing they would be charged with rape

Case in point the 4 underage boys who raped the underage girl here in phx, they are being charged with rape not stautory rape.

Can you seriously not see the difference?

AS for Florida, didnt they drop the charges against that woman who left her daughter in a closet for so long that she can neither talk nor walk so she would vollentarily surredner her parental rights?

I'm sorry, what was the topic again? Moms who kidnap? Child molestation? 17 year old female sexual agency?

Damn memory is going on me...

Speaking of overprotecting kids ...

Lenore Skenazy, a mom, is doing something about it. Go visit her blog at

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

Some good stuff there for parents of young kids.

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a disparity in sentencing. In fact, the reverse. There is a disparity, and I'm suggesting the reasons why. It isn't just some feminist conspiracy - these are long-held cultural beliefs about the difference between male and female sexuality. Even mothers don't usually view their sons as being "defiled" by having sex with a woman. It's not treated the same way it is with girls. Regarding sex, we treat our girls and boys differently.

And what I'm suggesting is this comes from loss of status. Girls LOSE status the more sex they have and boys GAIN it. Boys generally react with pride for having sex, and girls are often shamed, if only after the fact. So, you have an emotional trauma that exists there for the girl because she's lost status - lost her oh-so-valued purity or made to look slutty - whereas the boy does not suffer that same effect.

The impulse, then, especially from the parents, but also from the legal system, is to punish the boys for taking status from the girls. Yet, no one views the boys being seduced by females as having lost anything. And, usually, they haven't. Almost none claim to have been forced to have sex, and really, the idea of that is pretty absurd.

My only point is that these are deeply-ingrained cultural views that we all carry. They weren't invented by feminism.

Sorry LS but when feminists claim, excuse me LIE, and say 1 in 4 women are raped it is their fault.

You say boys are seen as gaining status for having sex? If that were true why would they be getting punished instead of praised?

Case in point
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CBS_8_year_old_boy_sexual_conduct_sitter.aspx

Your flailing around tring to find plausible excuses, stop and look at the situation rationally.

What movment began just before the demonization of everything male?

You yourself on occasion have said in these discussions that men dont form political action groups as often as women.

Politicains are spinless coward bowing to the whim of whoever brings the greatest pressure to bear on their career, and it certainly aint men.

You think todays children have it rough, imagine what the teenagers are going thru.

You cant have sex anymore without two forms of photo ID,a drug test, and a camcorder otherwise you might wind up a child molester or a rapist. And if that cute college girl you met at the frat party stole her sisters ID you just might wind up a child pornographer.

Do you seriously expect us to belive the men, who obstinately want nothing more than sex at the drop of a hat, would push for all these laws that make it damn near impossible to get some?

Lujlp, it stems from parent's own fears and ingrained gender bias as much as anything feminism has accomplished. This is fueled by our media, which scares every parent into fearing the male sexual predator, even if he might be 8 yrs old, which is absurd, but those prosecuters who made that dumb call were likely not feminists. They were probably even males, influenced by the same view I'm talking about: Boys always participate in sex or sex play willingly when a female is involved.

And I ask you, before feminism, were there ever cases of females being prosecuted for raping males? (other than incest). I don't recall tales of teachers being fired or prosecuted for such a crime.

My bf is 48 now but, at 15, he had an affair with his 20-something yr old teacher, and several men have shared with me stories about having sexual relationships with older women while still underage. Yet, they never dreamed of reporting this as "child molestation" because:

1) they genuinely enjoyed it. 2) They didn't think it was wrong. 3) Their friends all thought they were the coolest for getting some.

So, before feminism, which also corresponds with the whole country's loss of innocence and growing paranoia with regards to child molestation, those crimes wouldn't have been prosecuted at all. It is actually because of our enhanced awareness of sex crimes against children that males could even be considered "raped" by females. Previously, the idea was considered totally laughable within the legal system. Now, it's just considered sort of laughable.

Amy-
I saw your friend Lenore on Fox and Friends a few weeks ago. It was a great segment, but I couldn't believe the wacko woman they had opposite her... she was saying that 12 and 13 year olds don't make good babysitters b/c if the house were to catch on fire they would be sure to leave your poor defenseless toddler to burn to death... I couldn't believe she said that, let alone appears to believe it whole heartly...cause you know fire is the way fate likes to punish selfish moms who have the nerve to take their eyes off of their children...

For the record, I started babysitting when I was 12 and quickly became the best sitter in the neighborhood... sitting taught me about responsiblity and patience and I can say that I would never have let one of my "kids" burn to death in the house....

Oh, I don't know. I babysat at 12 too, but hell if I'd leave my kids with one. And I can't remember anything I did I'd be uncomfortable with, really, as a parent. I'd just see them as a kid, not one to watch kids.

I would not want to bet my kids lives on a 12 year old thinking clearly in an emergency, or being willing to risk their life for my child's. Might happen, but then again I might win the lottery too.

Lovelysoul, a lot of the arguments you make about girls being more valued for their sexual purity may have some truth. But they ignore several factors.

If the main harm done to a girl is loss of virginity or being shamed, then surely this doesn't matter if the girl was already sexually experienced before the encounter. By definition, you are inviting sexual history as a relevant issue. If a girl who is sexually innocent is more harmed, then the logical conclusion is that a girl who is more sexually experienced is not harmed.

If the main harm is public shame, then surely having a high profile legal case only compounds this harm and this may be seen as a reason to let sleeping dogs lie.

And no, LS, I am not actually advocating anything myself here. I am merely taking your views through to their logical conclusion.

"Oh, I don't know. I babysat at 12 too, but hell if I'd leave my kids with one. And I can't remember anything I did I'd be uncomfortable with, really, as a parent. I'd just see them as a kid, not one to watch kids.

I would not want to bet my kids lives on a 12 year old thinking clearly in an emergency, or being willing to risk their life for my child's. Might happen, but then again I might win the lottery too."

When my father was 12 his father dropped him off at the ranch he owned that was 40 miles out of town and said he would be up every few weeks to check on him. He had to take care of the cattle, fix the fences and cook for himself. Probably not as dangerous as the four years my father spent in the South Pacific between the ages of 28 and 32. :-)
Like many, Momof4, I think you are a poor calculator of risk. Your children are at much greater risk for injury or death when you put them in your car, seatbelts car seats and all, crossing the street, riding a school bus, or on a family camping trip than the hypothetical evening with the 12 year old baby sitter. Most of the people killed in house fires are the poor. Those that live with faulty wiring, kerosene heaters and no smoke detectors. Baby choking to death? If they are not being watched at the moment that it happens and sometimes if they are, the age of the baby sitter will make little or no difference. Of course your position isn't about logic. It is about you being an unrepentant helicopter parent that has to have everyone else buy into your position that your unnatural fears and obsession over the safty of your children are "reasonable"

Lovelysoul, do you believe it is possible for a teenaged girl of 16-17 to want and enjoy having sex with either an older male?

Because your posts seem to essentially rule out full female sexual agency at that age, at least insofar as it expresses itself as desire for older mates.

I get that, Nick S, and I agree that it should follow that logic, but it doesn't. Very few teen girls are actually virgins anymore, so it's really a reputation thing. Sexual purity isn't meant as just being virginal. I think today it's more about being choosy than chaste.

Girls are taught to guard their sexuality - to either save it for their husbands or, at the very least, only give it away to a select few guys who truly care about them, ie: someone they've dated for awhile. Otherwise, a girl is seen as "easy" and therefore less valued in our society. Her status goes down, while males, behaving the same way, increase in status.

My take is that prosecuters are only human and are influenced by these cultural factors as well as direct pressure from victims and parents. This has a greater impact than feminism.

Say you're a prosecuter. You have a young girl in your office who is extremely emotionally upset about a sexual encounter - one who feels violated or devalued, or whose parents feel she has been violated or devalued. And, conversely, you have a young man who calmly says he had sex with an older woman, but he doesn't regret it and feels no ill effects from it (in fact, it's made him more popular with his peers), and even his parents think it's really no big deal....well, which case would you be more likely to take a harder line on when it comes to seeking punishment?

I think it's just natural for the legal system to rush in to defend those they feel are most aggrieved or traumatized. I've seen it in action. A teary-eyed "victim" is going to get the more passionate response from those involved. And when it comes to these types of sexual encounters, girls are simply more likely to be emotionally effected, and also perceived as having lost something, whereas boys are perceived as have gained something.

Sexual experience is in the plus column for men, but the minus column for women. And attorneys are used to viewing cases in terms of damages. Who has suffered damages? They simply don't view boys as having suffered any true harm, unless the boys express that, which, in the majority of these cases, they don't. And if the boy himself doesn't feel like a victim, the legal system is less likely to treat him as one.

Spartee, I do. But I also think she's more likely to regret it and feel physically used afterwards compared to a male in the same situation. Therein lies the problem.

I babysat at 12, too. But it was in my neighborhood, near my mother, who was mostly home and available in case of emergency. I knew everyone in our (urban) neighborhood. If I'd screamed 100 people would have come running. That's just not true today.

That said, I had a professional meeting at the home of a woman I'd never met before tonight, the sitter (17) canceled, and so I took my little girl with me. The host's husband was going to walk their dog. My girl asked if she could go with him. I didn't even hesitate.

I know my share of paranoid parents but I know a helluva lot more who aren't, at least not overly so. I've never met a dad who backed away from my kids. Men talk to them all the time in lines at stores. Guy coaches and camp counselors don't seem wary at all.

In fact it seems like a lot of the pointing fingers on this subject today is by people who don't have kids. I mean before the guys who can't let one post pass without foaming about their hate for feminists and how women have all the power and ruined the world for them took over again.

LS you are being intentionally obtuse

Say you're a prosecuter. You have a young girl in your office who is extremely emotionally upset about a sexual encounter - one who feels violated or devalued, or whose parents feel she has been violated or devalued

In a day and age when a woman can have a man arrested for rape because she had a couple of beers before she even ran into him the night before do you reallybelive a prosecuter is only going to charge statutory rape if he has an underage girl claiming she was violated?

You dont strike me as stupid but when it comes to these types of subjects you seem unwilling to think thinng thru

Feminism is the practice of prioritizing women's interests ahead of those of men AND CHILDREN, and of institutionalizing that prioritization.

That's the etymological meaning, just as is the case for similar terms such as caucasianism, christianism, and -- most appositively -- elitism.

And that's also the empirically descriptive meaning, because that's what feminists actually DO. They put women's interests first, ahead of those of both men AND CHILDREN, and push to have that condition institutionalized in society.

And that, in turn, is why lovelysoul and others like her defend it so automatically and dogmatically, regardless of the validity of the criticisms applied to it.

"Like many, Momof4, I think you are a poor calculator of risk. Your children are at much greater risk for injury or death when you put them in your car, seatbelts car seats and all, crossing the street, riding a school bus, or on a family camping trip than the hypothetical evening with the 12 year old baby sitter."

And you are being deliberatively assholic and assumptive about me. I'm not a poor calculator of risk. I'm quite good at it, having a minor in criminology. I don't worry about locking my doors when we're home, because it really doesn't matter. I have no alarm system. There are few areas I'll not go, whether or not at night. A lot of crime is either someone fixated on you (nothing you can do there) or just random wrong place wrong time (nothing you can do there either) unless you're a young black male, which I'm not.

Riding in a car is the most risk my kids get, true. It's the highest risk for me too. It's also unavoidable risk, we live in Texas and one has to drive here. The highest interpersonal risk for me is my spouse, the highest interpersonal risk for my kids is me. A 12 year old is a risk I prefer not to take. Giving the heimlich (to use the chocking example) is physically difficult. It requires a lot of force on anyone past baby stage. If I'd rather swap sitting with my adult friends or family so they can also play with friends/cousins, that's my business.

I would never take a 6 year old boy in the women's room with me. Barring disability, that's inappropriate. Men are not waiting in the mens' room to grab a 2 second feel of your son's penis. Absurd. My 5 year old girls go to the restroom without me plenty in public. They can. They also know me and Dh's "real" names, our addy and phone number, and to find a cop or adult with kids to ask for help. Not because I think an unaccompanied adult won't help, but because that gives them something concrete to do when lost. Having a concrete plan can stave off panic.

If I want to let them walk to kinder by themselves next month, that's my business as well (and I plan to, there are crossing guards at the road they'd have to cross, although they'd *probably* remember to check for cars on their own). They also take plenty of lessons with male teachers. So take your "helicopter parent" shit and shove it in the direction of someone who deserves it. There are plenty of them.

JulieA, right on with the nonparents weighing in with their untested opinions quite heavily on these topics.

I'm not defending feminism. You guys blame feminism for every event under the sun, and every disparity involving gender. If the cost of tomatoes goes up, it's feminism's fault. You're totally obsessed with your hatred for feminists, which obsures your logic.

The idea that a girl can be raped, whereas a boy cannot way predates feminism. It's an OLD, deeply ingrained, cultural concept. In previous eras, a boy would've been laughed out of the room for claiming he'd been raped by a woman.

And if you honestly think that prosecuters and judges don't still deep down feel that way, and get a hearty chuckle behind doors over the very idea that a boy being seduced by an older woman (especially an attractive one) was truly the victim of some crime, and that the only reason they'd drop or plea such cases is due to feminism, you're deluding yourself.

They'd have dropped those cases or plead them 50 yrs ago, and they're actually less likely to do so now. Letourneau went to jail. However, in support of my point, I think the publicity, as well as the boy's mother's outrage impacted that particular case, which I suspect was less because her son had sex but that his lover kept getting pregnant.

The boy never claimed to be a victim, doesn't consider himself one, and in fact, married her after her release.

LS I'm a misanthrope so I'm not too keen on the male gender either, but you just yesterday argued that rape victims who experince a physical arousal were asking for it. And not three hours later endorsed rape charges for men engaged in a consentual relationship if the woman felt bad about it anytime afterward

I'd say that pretty much confirms Acksioms apprasail of the situation

Lujlp, you're confusing my appraisal of the situation with my endorsement of it. Often, I'm only stating what I think actually happens, not what I think should happen.

I don't believe underage girls should engage in consentual sex with boys their own age, or close to their own age (within 5 years), and then be able to charge statutory rape.

But when there's a much older person and an underage person, I believe there is almost always some manipulation by the older person involved. This is true whether the older person is male or female.

Yet, how does a boy usual feel about being manipulated into sex? Pretty darn good. Yea! He just got laid!

How does a girl feel? Often, she feels used, confused, degraded, and like she's lost something, which she has - a little bit of status.

To her, this feels like a crime. And since, in our culture, it technically IS a crime, this is why these cases are prosecuted more often.

The boy can make charges too, but he doesn't feel like there's been a crime. It's kind of like that old riddle, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it..."

If no involved feels like a crime has been committed, is it really a crime? Yes, technically, of course. It's still on the books. But getting prosecuters, police and judges to take that as seriously as a case where a girl feels abused and violated by her older seducer is a much harder sell.

That's just the truth. I have a boy and a girl and I see how we raise them differently with regards to sexuality, and how they are inherently different themselves. This is a cultural difference that results in a gender disparity. I think the disparity would still exist, regardless of feminism.

>>Oh, I don't know. I babysat at 12 too, but hell if I'd leave my kids with one.

Same deal here, momof4.

I was a safe, relatively mature, pair of hands at 12, provided nothing out of the ordinary happened. And nothing out of the ordinary ever did happen when I babysat (aside from the odd randy Dad coming home full of booze & wandering hands!).

As a parent, I considered 12 too young for a babysitter. Maybe my judgment wasn't entirely logical but a bit of paranoia seems permissible and it hasn't extended to "helicoptering" in any other area.

When I was twelve, about three decades ago, I was absolutely mature enough to babysit. I wouldn't trust a twelve year old today with my kids (not that I have any). Conventional wisdom says kids today are maturing faster than before but exactly the opposite is true. Having sex sooner and getting tattoos and knowing all the words to 50 Cent's "Candy Shop" doesn't make you more mature. Kids today are actually less able to take care of themselves then they use to be because more things are done for them and they are taught to be afraid of everything.

The same goes for adults. Feminism was originally about equal rights but has devolved into "protecting the sisters from those evil men." Today's version of feminism isn't the cause, it's just another symptom of this problem. The lastest syptom, played out every day on Ms. Alkon's blog, is this backlash from men who are afraid to ask women out and can't get laid because of the fear the woman will cry rape when she sobers up.

I have to go to the airport three hours before my flight leaves because of fear. My neices can't have peanut butter sandwiches in their school lunches in case some hypothetical student has a hypothetical allergy. Americans are becoming afraid of everything. Soon, we'll all be living in our own private plastic bubbles like John Travolta.

Once again, the point is lost in this game of "your gender sucks."

> Again, Crid, we quibble over words.

No, we quibble over principles.

> Of course we should hope that people
> have good judgment. That is not the
> same as people being judgmental.

Lunacy. Madness. STUPIDITY. It is the same thing.

> We live in sue happy society.

Again! Again! You dream of a magical land called Elsewhere in which cuddlyfolk are nicer and less aggressive... Less aggressive to you, at least.

> no room for human error
> any longer.

And you're wizened and sentimental! By cracky, you remember the olden days, when a man was a man and a woman knew her place. Or whatever. In your imagination, people used to be nice until... um.... something. There was a change in policy... By Dick Cheney or someone. And now people are mean! "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains", etc. Basically, you want to cluck at people.

It's horseshit.

There's nothing new about the human propensity for malicious gossip. No nation on Earth gives people a better shot at defending oneself from small-mindedness than the United States of America.

Good judgment is to be encouraged. Period. Don't play word games.

"Once again, the point is lost in this game of "your gender sucks."

Amen, Gordon, that's exactly the game here. And the sad part is that guys who are so fearful about a false-rape claim are being just as paranoid and unreasonable as parents worried about a child-molester behind every corner.

Yes, it happens. It isn't very LIKELY to happen. So, the question is how much do we let it control our lives? Are you really not going to have relationships out of fear? You and/or your children are much more likely to die in a car accident, so are you going quit driving anywhere? We take risks every day. Each of us has only one life, and we need to live it, and interact positively with each other, despite the relatively rare chance of something bad happening.

Paranoid and unreasonable?

I've already been the recipient of two fabricated sexual harassment claims. You have a good way to make sure I'm not setting myself up for some kind of escalation?

The problem isn't that rape happens. The problem is that it is politically, socially and legally advantageous for people to lie about such things.

You wouldn't lie about your house being broken in to, because you'd go to jail when you got found out. And the insurance company you tried to swindle gets their money back.

But women lie all the time about sexual harassment and rape, and when they are found out, they get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And then men they hurt with their scurrilous accusations? Well, they spend the rest of their life being looked askance at, or worse yet, being violently assaulted and even killed.

And getting back to the original thread, we teach children to fear everything and have no judgment of their own. Adults can't go near schools without getting a talking to. The local YMCA outdoor facility has a policy prohibiting paying members from being on premises while day camp is in session.

Where does it end? Perverse incentives, m'lady, they surround us.

"But women lie all the time about sexual harassment and rape..."

That is not true, Brian. Women don't lie "all the time" about rape. It's extremely rare that a woman would be so duplicitious as to make a false rape claim and see it through. It happens, but it's probably about as rare as a child-predator abduction.

That doesn't mean every rape charge results in a conviction, but I honestly believe that the majority of women do not make rape charges unless they have been raped. In fact, most of my friends who have been raped never made any charge. It's embarrassing, hard to prove, and they'd rather forget it. More rapes occur than get reported or prosecuted.

I'm sorry you had two bad incidents regarding harrassment, but you shouldn't let that color your whole view of women. Like I was just telling a friend who's dated two pyscho-women in a row, he can't start believing all women are like that because they're not, and he's probably missing some subtle cues early on that would otherwise warn him that these are unstable women. Actually, I know he does. In his excitment to be in a relationship, he ignores these cues. Women do this also. Then, they complian all men are jerks, but that's not true either.

More rapes occur than get reported or prosecuted.

Wouldn't that tend to support the argument that a significant number of reported rapes never occurred?

Obviously the lack of any punishment whatsoever for false reporting isn't encouraging REAL rape victims to come forward. Seems that rape shield laws didn't either.

This is pure craziness. It seems that no matter what the topic, the feminist hating men come out and the women who feel that there has never been such a thing as a false report come out. Feminism did not cause this girl to falsely report a rape. She was obviously a person with poor moral judgments and thought nothing was wrong with accusing someone for financial gain. The problem is not feminism just as the problem is not the big bad men. The problem is this little bitch tried to wreck someone's life and she should face stiff penalties.
I am all for equal opportunities, and not at the expense of anyone else, but there is no opportunity in the world that could ever make me want to falsely accuse someone of rape. So why don't we leave off all the other bullshit being thrown around and all agree that this girl should spend some time in jail, some time with a therapist, and then pay some restitution.

> I honestly believe that the
> majority of women do not make rape
> charges unless they have been raped.

'Honest beliefs' at that level of generality have no business influencing policy/law. Jurisprudence should protect everyone not just some (imaginary) "majority". A rape charge does damage, even when withdrawn.

The problem is this little bitch tried to wreck someone's life and she should face stiff penalties.

Again, poor analysis from not thinking beyond zeroth order consequences.

Gender feminism pushed the idea that all men are rapists, the idea that rape is epidemic, and the idea that rape is a normal manifestation of male sexuality.

This led to things like rape shield laws where women who accuse men of rape never have to confront them in court, aren't questioned, etc. This was done in the hopes (by lawmakers, not the feminazis who lobbied them) that women would feel less shame/discomfort/fear about reporting rapes and would bring the "problem" (which never existed) under control.

What happened instead was those same feminazis stoked the fires of revenge politics and got women to go along with the idea that it's ok to do things to hurt men. They followed this up with a chorus to sing "women don't lie about these things, you know." every time a woman lied about these things. You know?

As a result, a woman can lie about being raped, destroy an innocent man's life, cost the taxpayers millions, and never see one bit of harm come to herself when her perfidy is revealed.

So regardless of your desire to punish her, there is simply no legal paradigm under which she may be punished.

My complaint is that so much of what is argued here is purposely ignoring practical and biological realities and circumstantial limitations.

Rape takes place usually between a man and woman who are alone, and nobody but them really knows what happened. So, it's a challenge to address fairly in every case. Either the guy gets away with it or the girl is lying. Obviously, both happen, especially when victims, like my friends, don't report the crime. But that is, practically-speaking, just the limitations because we simply don't have a crystal ball or foolproof way of handling such an intimate and unobserved crime. The very nature of it is bound to result in injustices occurring on both sides.

Same with gender disparities. There are simply practical realities that can't be equalized. Men and woman are different, and it's not all a creation of feminism. Look at countries where there is virtually no feminism, like Saudia Arabia. I bet more males are convicted of rape there than females. Probably not a lot, but still MORE. In fact, if there's 3 men convicted a year compared to...well, no women...then you could say Saudia Arabia has 3x more rape convictions of men than women.

But why? It's not feminism's fault. It's entirely due to cultural factors, along with the almost universal belief that men can't be raped by women but women can be raped by men. I bet Saudia Arabia doesn't even have a law dealing with a male being raped by a woman, but that's not because they're "anti-male."

Yet, here, we take every gender disparity, that might easily and pragmatically be explained solely by the difference in genders, or the unfortunate limitations of circumstances, and try to make a case for bias...hopefully one that can be blamed on feminism.

Brian, normal, caring women of integrity do NOT levy false rape charges against anyone. I have never done so, even when I was raped. Instead, I got treatment (physical and psychological). I don't know who did it to this day. I was attacked in a parking garage in New Haven, 30 years ago. For all I know, that bastard is still out there. The police were called, there's a report and everything. They just don't know who did it. Probably will never know. But I didn't let it end my life or sour my feelings towards men.

LS - I'd bet that the number of rapes punished in Saudi Arabia is vanishingly small compared with the number of women who report being raped only to find themselves stoned for fornication.

Hardly a robust example.

The point I was trying to make was that a specific group of agitators got laws changed in a perverse way to get something to happen. When something completely different happened, they not only failed to point it out, but they piled on because it was helpful to another agenda that they had.

We've seen the same thing in the "War on Drugs". There is no penalty for the man who made a false accusation as a confidential informant. No penalty for the police who kicked in a man's door in the middle of the night. But Cory Maye remains on death row because he shot what he thought was an armed intruder in his home.

When you reward a behavior, you get more of it. That's all I'm sayin'.

I just read of a case in NYC where a woman confessed to her priest that she made up a rape story 4 yrs ago. The guy went to jail. But she is facing prosecution.

It's easy to say that she should be because it's an awful thing that she did, but the double-edged sword is that any woman out there reading that who may have doubts that she picked the wrong guy out of lineup or has regrets about a false claim, will be less likely to come forward.

normal, caring women of integrity

See, the funny thing is that one of those false harassment claims (i.e. there was no harassment) was filed by a man -- not for something I supposedly said or did to him, but for something that I never did or said to one of his female co-workers. He made this claim up and told my boss about it (I worked for a company that provided services to his employer) in the hopes of getting me fired because I made him look bad.

Let that whirl around in your mind for a while.

but the double-edged sword is that any woman out there reading that who may have doubts that she picked the wrong guy out of lineup or has regrets about a false claim

There's something called "good faith". And a woman who unintentionally picks the wrong guy out of a lineup can be said to have acted in good faith.

The woman who fabricates a story out of whole cloth, however? Malicious intent.

There's no double-edged sword here.

"It's not feminism's fault. It's entirely due to cultural factors,"

Feminism now pervades law and culture, ergo it must bear a great deal of responsibility for the havoc wrought as a direct result of its belief system.

----------------------------------------------

I hate to say it, but I too find myself doubtful when it comes to rape accusations.

There is a simple reason really, which intent is more common in humanity:

Violent sexual intent

or

self serving lies

----------------------------------------------

Violent sexual intent is exceedingly rare even in the sex that is most able to pursue that end.

Self serving liars are as common as grass in a field. It just so happens that in the case of women with said intent, the charge of sexual assault, rape, molestation, or harassment, is almost invariably likely to result in the desired end, be it monestary settlement, public sympathy, revenge, etc, and be believed due to the pervasiveness of feminist thought, and getting "caught" in a lie will rarely to never bring any negative consequences towards the liar.

So what does that leave us with?

A situation in which it is possible to lie for a whole array of reasons all of which we are familiar with and understand, a legal, political, & cultural climate predisposed to believing the accuser even against all evidence, providing no consequences to the false witness, and society standing ready and eager to condemn the accused even after proven innocent.

How then can any rational person claim that there are likely to be more REAL reports, than FALSE ones?

Its already been argued that more go unreported than are reported, but the very fact that they go unreported means we can't count them, ergo we can't know for sure, going with your gut is no way to debate, let alone write law.

Finally, we must ask a question that, depending upon how it is answered, would see countless accusations invalidated:

If a man and a woman are drinking, and then follow their drinking with intoxicated sex, why is he a rapist and she a victim?

As it stands from my point of view, two adults are consistently responsible for their own choices, whatever their state of mind or external influences (i.e. alcohol) Regret of the act after the fact shouldn't land one party in jail.

Brian, we can't pick out a child-predator either. He might be the little-league coach, priest, or your uncle.

Unfortunately, there are bad people out there. Liars and cheats and dirtbags. Relying on confidential informants was one of the worst policies of the drug wars. Everybody rolled on everybody to save their own ass, true or not.

But I've almost been raped a couple of times. The last just a few years ago by a pilot for a major airline. He's still out there, flying the friendly skies. So, I agree with feminism's view that there are many more rapes and rapists out there than are actually caught or charged.

Even if he'd succeeding in raping me, I likely wouldn't have reported it. Too embarrassing. So, I think those feminists weren't "agitators", they were trying to help make it easier and less shameful for women like me to come forward. Maybe it was poorly implemented, but the effort was well-meaning.

It's interesting, Robert, that the males all think real rape is so rare, but we women are telling you that rapes and attempted rapes aren't that uncommon in our own experiences.

The unenviable challenge for the legal system is to either treat all women like sociopathic, narcissistic liars, and not prosecute any man for rape, or treat women as credible and risk sending innocent men to jail.

I honestly don't know the solution. I have an excellent reputation and credibilty, but my sense was that if it was my word against the handsome, accomplished pilot, it would've been a helluva a hard charge for me to prove. Even with DNA, he'd just say I wanted it. We were on a date. We'd had a couple of drinks. I wore a flattering dress.

The only supportive evidence I would have had is that it was in a parking lot. Do I look like the kind of girl who'd have sex in a parking lot? I didn't want to find out the answer to that question. But I knwo what happened to me and I know there's a rapist out there.

Brian, we can't pick out a child-predator either. He might be the little-league coach, priest, or your uncle.

Way to miss the point. I'm told that I should not allow my bad experiences to color my view of women. However, we have social policies that are designed to do just that to men based upon the bad experiences of a few women.

I mean, at least you and I are heading for the policy of "everyone sucks", which is about as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get. But to have men profiled in such a heinous manner as a matter of policy on the basis of the actions of a small minority is a level to which even my paranoia won't rise.

The last just a few years ago by a pilot for a major airline.

Why does he still have testicles?

So, I think those feminists weren't "agitators", they were trying to help make it easier and less shameful for women like me to come forward. Maybe it was poorly implemented, but the effort was well-meaning.

The road to hell, and all that. Here's the thing - when it was realized that their policies had a far more destructive impact than anyone could have imagined, why were they not reversed? Perhaps because they could not bear to admit that they were wrong? Or perhaps it's because the outcome satisfied some other part of their particular world view?

For that matter, why is it that any policy that ends with results counter to its creator's intent never gets repealed?

"I mean, at least you and I are heading for the policy of "everyone sucks", which is about as close to the truth as we're ever gonna get." lol

Btw, I did kick him in the balls. That's the only way I escaped.

Lovelysoul said, "Amen, Gordon,"

Actually, I was talking to you since you are just as guilty as Brian and Jay R at the "your gender sucks" game.

In fact, I'm not compelety convinced you and Brian aren't the same person. You certainly sound alike. For example: you both take examples from your personal life and think they qualify as proof of your arguments.

In the end, you are both still talking about a tiny fraction of people and using it to justify your distrust of half the human race.

In a related story, if you think the fearmongering hasn't gone far enbough yet, head on over to Slate.com. There is an article about how the world is now running out of sugar.

You think I'm Brian? I'll take that as a compliment, Gordon.

It's sad that almost anything I say gets translated as I'm afraid of men or don't like men or don't trust men. Nothing could be further from the truth. You project a lot of other's women's crap onto me.

LS - Good. Part of the feminist experience is to tell women not to fight their rapists. That's where the pacifist end of leftism really hurts them.

Sometimes violence is the answer.

Oh, and Gordo - LS and I aren't the same person. We're not even in the same half of the country.

Yes, women lie about rape all the time. Those evil women, you know. I was raped at 14 violently. Did not tell anyone. I had lied about where I was to my parents. That would have paled to my parents compared to what happened to me, but I was 14 and not real rational.

Had a Dr molest me during a physical at 16. I thought something was wrong at the time, but never having had a "women's exam" before, was not certain. Having had a lot of them since, I know beyond a doubt what he did was not medical.

Had a businessman try to lure me and a friend to his hotel room at 12. We didn't go, thank goodness.

Had several men try to stop me-physically-from leaving when they wanted some and I wanted to leave. I'm fairly large for a woman, and strong, so I got out. Not all would have.

My experiences are not all that unique to me, most of my friends have had at least 2 near misses if not outright rapes. Few ever reported it. I doubt myself and the women I know are outliers. So yes, rape is very underreported, and there are lots of potential rapists and rapists out there.

Didn't we just have a date cost thread where several of you stated outright if you're shelled out for dinner, you expected sex? You few may not go from expecting it to trying to make it, but many men do. Many men, in my experience and the experience of others. How many of you have actually had a woman lie about you raping her?? Hmmm?? Surely some of you if it's so much more common that actual rape.

Geez, Brian, bitter much? Next we'll hear how feminism caused global warming. C'mon, I'm sure one of you can make that argument!

Geez, Brian, bitter much? Next we'll hear how feminism caused global warming. C'mon, I'm sure one of you can make that argument!

That would be impossible as global warming is not happening.

Gordon,

Please pay closer attention. I attack feminism and its adherents, both MALE and FEMALE. I do not attack or disparage women (I want only the best for women, men and children, and so MUST be anti-feminist). Nor am I an apologist for everything male.
I do not argue that women suck -- I do, however, respond to feminist divisive assertions that women's shit doesn't stink just as badly as men's.

I also do not engage in ad hominem attacks against other posters -- just their positions and opinions. On that subject, you make clear what you think of other posters, but as to your own positions and ideas? So far, not so much ....

BTW, it's EASY to see a connection between feminism and a waste of resources (however warming that waste may be): feminism's successful destruction of the family has resulted in more adults having their own separate living spaces with consequent inefficiency and increased energy consumption.

Go green -- stop feminism!

Thank you Momof4. Every woman I know has been restrained physically by a man or a boy who wanted to get some; most made it out but it is still wrong. My sister is 19 and has had boys reach up her skirt more than once after she clearly (and I believe her, she is not a ditzy teenager) said she did not want to dance with them.

I don't take this information and use it to color my opinions of all men, because I know far too many wonderful ones, but I also firmly believe that more rapes and assaults take place than are reported.

Some here apparently think that large numbers of unreported rapes and large numbers of false rape claims are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not.

Remember, there is no actual connection between rapes and false rape claims, except that they are both crimes -- and crimes of power, at that (although false rape claims are generally tolerated rather than punished; the perpetrators are "just women," after all, who therefore can't be held responsible for their behavior -- or so it would appear). Rapists are disgusting pigs who rape for their own sick purposes. False accusers are disgusting pigs who falsely accuse for their own sick purposes.

Once again we find symmetry beween the sexes when we look at things dispassionately.

I'd like to know where to get a copy of this feminist handbook that tells a rape victim not to fight back. I'm sure there must be a special chapter called "How to Fry His Balls" or "50 Ways to Make Him Suffer for Being Born with a Dick." The prisons must be filled with innocent people and all these laws created to protect rape victims came from nothing more than women's vindictive behavior. I'm starting to sympathize with poor misunderstood OJ Simpson and maybe even poor misunderstood Ted Bundy. Those guys must've gotten a raw deal.

Man, this thread got depressing... If anecdote constitutes evidence, such that the incidents related here (which I won't dispute the veracity of) prove that unreported rape is very common, then it must also be accepted that false accusation of rape is very common. I myself have been subject to both a false accusation of sexual harassment, and a woman who screamed rape because she deemed me unworthy of sitting next to her at a bar. (Apparently she considered the word a handy all-purpose attention getter.) So, if both of these things is true, I'm not sure where that leaves us. Nowhere good, it seems.

Anyway, back to the topic: There's something that I find interesting going on here. Several of the folks above who have children have acknowledged that the odds of their child being abducted by a stranger are a lot lower than the odds of other harmful (but less headline-grabbing) things. And they have acknowledged that, therefore, putting a lot of emphasis on preventing stranger abduction is irrational. And yet, they cannot bring themselves to let that fear go. I will admit up front here that I have no children of my own, and I'm not getting it. Not that I don't understand irrational fears; I certainly don't claim to not have a few of my own. But I still don't get it. Someone please take a shot at explaining it to me.

NOW advocated against firearms ownership for women on the basis that women couldn't fight back and they're less likely to get hurt if they don't resist.

Don't like it? Take it up with the sisterhood.

Meanwhile, a dead rapist's spree ends.

It's just as irrational to fear a false rape claim as it is to fear a pedophile abduction. Both are rare, certainly compared to the actual numbers of real rapes that go unreported and the probable number of in-family molestations.

It seems like simple math to me. Men love sex and think about sex almost all the time. This is not a negative of males. I happen to love this aspect of manhood. But it seems obvious that the benefit males would derive from rape would be much greater than the benefit females would derive from falsely reporting rape. Trust me, there are easier ways to enact vengeance than sending you to jail, and my sense is that only a sociopath or very unstable woman would do so, and those are quite rare. It's much more common that a male would risk the benefit of rape to achieve sexual fulfillment.

So, what you have is the fact that males are loaded with testosterone, and sometimes, they use it to force themselves on women. I wish you guys could understand that often what you consider "consentual" is really more like what momoffour described. She wanted to leave and the guy was physically pushing for her to stay and have sex. I've been in those situations, and I'm not a big girl, so I personally gave in rather than fight. I don't consider that "rape", but I also don't consider it fully "consentual." Those guys are lucky I'm as fairminded as I am and wouldn't press charges.

So, you guys need to realize that this is truly happening. I was going to estimate exactly what momoffour said - that most of my friends averaged about two close calls if not actual rapes in their lifetime. I think that is a pretty normal statistic, and I think most women here would confirm that. So, the incidence of real rape is likely to be much higher than the incidence of false rape. That doesn't make it right, but it should at least put it into perspective.

Cousin Dave, I am a parent but I'm not one of the ones that has the stranger abduction fears. I've always felt pretty safe and feel that my kids for the most part have good instincts. As far as irrational fears though, I do have one. Since they were born, I was always afraid of them getting caught up in the undertow at the beach when hanging out with their friends at night. We are big beach goers and I've always taught them to respect the water, but that is my irrational fear as a parent. Strange, huh?
Brian, Somehow I don't get the same meaning from telling women not to own guns because they are not as strong as men, could easily be overpowered, and the gun they sought for protection was now a weapon against them as you get. That is a simple fact. Usually a man is stronger. Usually if a man is going to attack a woman, he has the advantage of strength and surprise on his side. A gun would likely get her killed. They never said don't fight back or don't try to get away. I admire your loose interpretations of things though. You have quite the imagination. Do you write screenplays?

Kristen, are you really gonna make me go find the exact quote?

I can tell you that it came from either the National Organization for Women or from the Brady Center.

And every time a rapist is shot dead by his would-be assailant, the anti-gun crowd predictably comes out of the woodwork to condemn her for shooting the motherfucker.

For your gratification - none of these women were overpowered.

One thing I can say for certain - a dead rapist won't victimize another woman.

And quite frankly I'm stunned that so many women here have had so many problems. Do you just live in areas populated by men with no self-control?

Kristen - as the old saying goes, God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.

You and everyone else who believes that a gun can be wrested from the hands of a would-be victim know nothing of firearms and watch far too many movies.

Field Trip for Kristen - find your local gun range. Sign up for a shooting class. Fire an actual pistol at a target.

When you realize the power that particular machine gives you, your mind will be forever changed.

It's a complete mindfuck to realize that the difference between life and death is measured in millimeters.

Cousin dave, I do fight my "irrational" fear of stranger abductions. I think I do it well, and my kids are not helicoptered or smothered. The reason that it scares me so, even when I know better, is that it's so quick. One second there, next second gone and you'll almost certainly not get them back. With the other scenarios, molestation by known people, at least you have time to see what's going on and stop it, and get therapy etc. If a stranger takes them, that's it, it's all over.

Same reason traffic bothers me. One fast car, and my kids' dead in the blink of an eye. No chance.

Brian, I have had "problems" with men in Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida. So I think it's pretty widespread.

Brian,
I've handled a gun. I was married to a cop and went to a shooting range. I do not believe that the majority of men are rapists or have the desire to rape. I grew up with brothers and always had men friends. Most men that I know are great people with a few losers mixed in. I have never man bashed on this site which you obviously are confusing with the comments that there are actual men who do rape out there.
Out of all those men that I know, there is not one that I could overpower. I do not hang out with body builders or professional wrestlers. I hang out with normal men from all walks of life and they are all stronger than me. So spare me your firearms lecture. If a woman wants to own a gun I hope that she owns responsibly, and I hope that she does understand the basic biological difference in strength when it comes to men and women.

I've been in those situations, and I'm not a big girl, so I personally gave in rather than fight. I don't consider that "rape", but I also don't consider it fully "consentual." Those guys are lucky I'm as fairminded as I am and wouldn't press charges. lovelysoul

So you didnt say no and the guys are lucky you didnt press charges?

3 quick questions
1. Why didnt you say no
2. Did you bother to quailfy you agreement to have sex with the following disclaimer "I dont really want to do thus but I will becuase if I dont I fear you will violently rape me"
3. Did the guys have sex with you after you made that statement?

One last thought, you say you didnt report your attepted rape for fear of people beliving you wanted to have sex.

At the same time you hold onto the belif that en can not be sexually assulted because they obviously wanted to have sex.

Ever consider the reason men dont report their sexual assutls is the same reason you didnt report yours?

No, I never consider that because biologically men can't have sex if they don't want to, whereas a woman can. I think the whole idea of a male being raped, particularly repeatedly, as in the schoolboy cases, is totally absurd. It's an abuse of power and inappropriate, but it's not physical rape.

And I did say, "no". "No, I don't want to. No, I want to go now (blocking me from leaving). No, please stop. Yes, I still like you, I just don't want to right now. (pushes me against wall, kissing me, takes my hand and places it on his erection)....

Do you want a whole description? I said I don't consider it rape because, at a certain of point, I just figured it was too difficult to try to leave and gave in. I didn't get mad and fight him. I'm not that way. At least I was much more passive in those days. I was probably more afraid to hurt his feelings. Hate to admit that, but true. Today, I would've probably kicked him in the balls, like the pilot. I've advanced. :) (Come to think of it, the pilot used the same move - putting my hand down his pants. Do you guys actually think that works?)

But I didn't make those comments to be attacked for what I did or didn't do when I was young. I wrote that to be helpful because I honestly don't think guys realize that pushing like that when a girl says, "no" takes the whole thing into very interpretive territory. You may think you're being sexy, showing her your bulging erection - "see how much I want you!" (my interpretation of the lizard brain) - and she's thinking, "God, he's going to rape me now!"

"Some here apparently think that large numbers of unreported rapes and large numbers of false rape claims are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not." - Jay R

Good point. One of the points being made here is that most rapes are not reported. The thing that people here don't seem to realise is that this would actually reduce the proportion of reported rapes that are actually true.

To illustrate the point simply: suppose 100 rapes take place, and 50 false allegations are made, during a given period of time in a particular area. Then 33% of rape allegations would be false. But then suppose of the 100 actual rapes, only 50 are reported. Suddenly 50% (50 out of 100) rape claims are false. Then suppose only 25 of the 100 are reported. Then 66% (50 out of 75) rape cases are false.

The point is that if most actual assaults go unreported, this must reduce the proportion of reported cases that are actually true.

There is nothing mutually exclusive about believing far more rapes take place than are reported and also believing that a large proportion (perhaps even most) reported rape cases are false. The problem is that many here are just too emotional to look at the issue logically.

Am I the only one who can see the yin and the yang?

No, I never consider that because biologically men can't have sex if they don't want to, whereas a woman can.

I don't believe that is true, actually. Dicks are quite responsive to physical stimuli, and they don't really respond to what Mr. Brain tells them.

Oh, since we're sharing anecdotes, I thought I'd share one that a girl told me back in college. Seems she had a rather insistent suitor who wanted oral sex. Well, she finally gave in to shut him up, and bit his johnson.

Believe me, there is no way a man is going to hurt you while he's writhing in pain from his injured cock.

Oh, and Kristen, maybe you should get one of these for your purse.

Then you can whisper sweet nothings in his ear like "I have a gun."

LS do you realize ou cant cause a man to get an erection by shoving a metal electrode in his ass and jolting him with current?

I seriously dont know how much more clearly I can make this, physical arousal is not proof of consent, if you dont belive that then you shouldnt be a femminist as they're the ones who said it first.

I hate to say it LS but you are a hypocrite, you dont think 12 yr old boys can be raped but think that 17yr old girls in a cosetual relationship were whether or not they think so.

SO to recap, you cant be molested by a member of the opposite sex(unless you are a girl)
You cant be raped(unless you are a girl)
Physical arrousal is proof of constent(unless you are a girl)

You seeing a pattern here LS?

>>Kristen, are you really gonna make me go find the exact quote? I can tell you that it came from either the National Organization for Women or from the Brady Center.

Brian,
I am not idly wasting your time (tho' you've had problems before finding contentious quotes you claim were made by feminist bigots) - but I'd like to see the quote you mean.

I may be wrong, of course, but it sounds as though it's lost some context?

Jody - It was one of the scrunts at the Brady Center, now that I've had the time to reflect on it. It was two separate quotes from one presser. The first one was the assertion that having the gun makes the woman more likely to be raped and shot rather than just raped. The second was the assertion that not fighting back would mean less likelihood of a retaliatory beating after the rape.

It was more about being anti-gun than anything else. Which I think is why it stuck with me. They'd rather have everyone disarmed than allow a woman the chance to defend herself from a rapist.

And I'm not going to piss myself off reading through all the anti-gun hysterics over there to find the quotes. You can do that if you like.

All one needs to do is look at real life where women aren't having their guns turned on them, and are instead putting serial rapists in pine boxes so they can't victimize any more women.

Lujlp, in all the cases I was talking about, the boys themselves didn't believe they were raped. They weren't upset about having sex with these women.

I am not a feminist so I don't know what they say, nor do I care. I just think this is one of those areas where there is a pretty significant biological gender difference, and you anti-feminists can't stand it because you want every single thing to be equal, especially when you perceive that a difference benefits women. You think we should pay for dates as much as you. You think we should be charged with rape as much as you. I'm surprised you don't demand that we pee standing up.

because you want every single thing to be equal, especially when you perceive that a difference benefits women.

Funny you should put it that way. So you DON'T believe in equality? Funny, I though that was what feminism was supposed to be about. But now that men are demanding feminists stand up to the ideals they pushed, you don't like it?

HYPOCRITE.

Again, I'm NOT a feminist, so no, I don't want everything to be equal. I like that men and women are different. How boring it would be otherwise.

Besides, I don't think feminism was about making everything totally equal between genders. It was about having equal opportunities. Some feminists may have tried to be more masculine, but that is true of any group. You'll always have some people who interpret the idealogy to the extreme and reflect that in their personal choices. But there was nothing in feminism that said we shouldn't still be feminine and different from men.

Even if they did say that, it's impossible. We have centuries of cultural and evolutionary programming, as well as biological differences.

Obviously, you anti-fems have decided to respond with a "you want equal? We'll show you equal!" mentality, whereby you want to change anything that might be a feminine benefit. I personally think that makes you seem petty and childish, especially the "I won't pay for dates" stuff, but to each his own.

Lovelysoul, I'm afraid you're wasting your time with some of thes "gentlemen" with your explanations. They aren't intersted in a well-reasoned argument. They want to punish feminists as though the idea of women wanting equal rights and protection under the law is something dirty and an affront to men.
There are very radical feminists who man bash and feminists who love and appreciate men but still would like the same opportunities as men. I find that most feminist haters are white males who feel threatened by a stronger or more ambitious woman. Maybe it was their 100 year head start when it came to civil rights that makes them so upset that the rest of us want the same things.
Simple facts cannot be ignored, but these commenters do ignore them. And in Brian's case, when push came to shove, his quote was again very different from what he originally claimed. Telling a woman not to fight back is different than telling her that sometimes fighting back will enrage an assailant to a more dangerous point. Its a hard call to make because most rapists don't do exit surveys to let you know which way you should have gone.
There are women out there who lie about rape and unfortunately these commenters hold onto them for dear life in an effort to paint all women with the same brush. Rape is very real and it happens every single day. I never want to see a man falsely accused or punised which is why I do believe that women making false accusations should be punished severely. They hurt more than just the man they accuse falsely. They hurt any real victims of rape.

LS: "But there was nothing in feminism that said we shouldn't still be feminine and different from men."

Well, actually, yes there is, or at least was. It was a central tenant of second-wave feminism that women and men are entirely alike exclusive of reproductive organs, and that sex roles are entirely due to socialization. Therefore, if there exists anything at all that's easier for men than it is for women, than that's prima facie evidence of sexism. Gender feminism took this and twisted it further to say that women are a superset of men -- women have all of the beneficial characteristics of men, plus a bunch more.

LS again: "It's just as irrational to fear a false rape claim as it is to fear a pedophile abduction. Both are rare, certainly compared to the actual numbers of real rapes that go unreported and the probable number of in-family molestations. "

You'll have to show me some data to support that. We've repeatedly quoted here, in past threads, the Air Force and FBI studies that show that at least half of all rape claims are probably false.

On to more reflective things:

Kristen: "Cousin Dave, I am a parent but I'm not one of the ones that has the stranger abduction fears. I've always felt pretty safe and feel that my kids for the most part have good instincts. As far as irrational fears though, I do have one. Since they were born, I was always afraid of them getting caught up in the undertow at the beach when hanging out with their friends at night. "

Interesting. Isn't it odd how, when we think we have all of the fears in our life beaten down, one more thing always pops up that's so hard to get rid of? Maybe there's some cultural (or more primitive than that) imagery associated with the beach at night: the darkness, the seemingly infinite breadth of the water, the unseeable below the surface. Of course, you probably know that the way to get out of an undertow is to swim across it. I've been caught in undertows several times, but I'm a good swimmer. I used to go down to the beach at night and go swimming by myself -- it was kind of a personal challenge, and I admit it was a bit spooky.

Momof4: "Cousin dave, I do fight my "irrational" fear of stranger abductions. I think I do it well, and my kids are not helicoptered or smothered. The reason that it scares me so, even when I know better, is that it's so quick. "

This is even more interesting because I'm not sure if you can call it a phobia or not, because it's not really a fear of something specific. What it really sounds like is the dread of something that might happen that's sudden and unforeseeable, and alters the course of your life irreversibly. There's a psychological word for that, but it escapes me at the moment. When I was in the fifth grade, one of my classmates was abandoned by his parents, in shocking fashion. He came home from school one afternoon to find that they had moved out of their apartment during the day, taking everything and leaving no contact information. I can't imagine what that must have been like, but it sort of sounds like the kind of thing you're talking about -- instantaneous, inexplicable , and irreversible. I talked to him about it once, several years later (he was taken in by the parents of another classmate, and they treated him well). He said that for months afterwards, he felt like there was a glass wall separating him from the rest of the world; he could see it, but not interact with it.

They hurt more than just the man they accuse falsely. They hurt any real victims of rape.

Therein lies the rub. Society has already decided that it won't penalize this one particular flavor of lie.

Martha Stewart went to prison for misremembering a conversation with a stock broker.

Oh, and telling someone to not fight back? That's called passively accepting fate. And it is something that no living being with a self-preservation streak ought to engage in. Ever.

I don't see how you think that the quote changed. Telling women to not fight back to avoid getting hurt further is the same thing as saying "let him rape you and get it over with". There's just no way that an intelligent person who valued human life over their own twisted political agenda would say that.

Someone tries to rape you? Kick, scream, bite, gouge eyes, pull hair. Do as much damage as you can. And if you manage to get a weapon? Use it.

Cousin Dave, It is funny because I do often wonder where I got that fear. The beach and boats were a very big part of my upbringing so it is surpising that I have the fear that I do. Maybe it comes more from some of the stupid things I watched my older brother do as a teenager. As responsible as we were, and we were pretty responsible kids, we did do our share and I'm guessing that's where my fears come from. We turned out safe, but looking back I wonder how I'd be to find out that my kids did some of those things that I did or watched my older brother do.
There were 6 drownings so far this summer at a beach in Queens, but during the day. I wonder how many people learn about the undertow and how to get out of it before venturing into the ocean for a swim.

"We've repeatedly quoted here, in past threads, the Air Force and FBI studies that show that at least half of all rape claims are probably false."

I haven't been on a rape thread yet, so I haven't seen those studies. I find that hard to believe and suspect they're talking about claims not actual prosecutions.

In my opinion, any woman who would follow through with a false rape claim and send an innocent man to prison is either a sociopath or has some exreme religious and/or social reason to lie about the rape.

Sociopaths are quite rare in the population, so it would more frequently be the latter. Still, a woman would need to be lacking in conscience.

In the case I referred to in NY, the woman said she lied because her friends were angry that she left them while she had drunken consentual sex with a guy she'd just met. Apparently she must've been driving, so when she returned to the restaurant, her friends were so angry they began hitting her, so she lied about being raped.

Ok, I can maybe see telling the lie if your friends are hitting you (who has friends that hit them?). Perhaps it calmed them down to use that as an excuse, but to keep up the lie? Maybe she filed a police report that night, in front of her friends, but still, she must've had ample opportunity before the guy was sent to jail to admit the truth. My guess is the fact she was Catholic played a part.

I, and most reasonable women, can't even relate to anyone who would do such a thing, nor do we know any woman who has done it.

Women tend to be blabbermouths, and if that many women were really making false rape claims for vengeance, publicity, or the sheer sport of it, trust me, we'd hear about it. That kind of woman would likely brag or couldn't resist confiding, "I got even with him. Guess what I did?"

I don't believe I know a woman who has made a rape charge, much less a false one.

And I did say, "no". "No, I don't want to. No, I want to go now (blocking me from leaving). No, please stop. Yes, I still like you, I just don't want to right now. (pushes me against wall, kissing me, takes my hand and places it on his erection)....

I, and most reasonable men, can't even relate to anyone who would do such a thing, nor do we know any man who has done it.

Men tend to be braggarts, and if that many men were really forcing themselves on women out of a sense of entitlement, anger, or the sheer sport of it, trust me, we'd hear about it. That kind of man would likely brag or couldn't resist confiding, "I got her to put out. Guess how?"

I don't believe I know a man who has attempted to force himself on a woman, much less raped one.

Everything I have re-cast here is precisely true, exactly as yours is.

Yeah, Brian, except I have other women here who have experienced rape and attempted rape. I think momoffour asked you guys how many of you or your friends have actually been falsely charged with rape and no one answered. So, it can't be that common that women actually carry it to the prosecution level.

Besides, a guy in that situation doesn't think, "I got her to put out", like he got away with rape. I honestly think the guy believes his kisses and dick is so magical that the woman is really loving it, despite whatever she says.

It's really not uncommon for men to push for sex. I'm sure most of the women here can attest to that.

Rape is one area which can't be equalized between genders. For one thing, most women don't even like sex that much. We prefer to cuddle. The emotional connection is much more important to us than sex itself. But even when we crave sex, we can ALWAYS find it. Women can always get laid. We don't need to take sex by force from an unwilling man. We sure as hell don't need to put an electrode up your butt.

Men, by contrast, crave sex but often can't get it very easily. Therefore, men have a much greater incentive for rape than women do. That doesn't mean all men rape, but it's certainly a difference between the genders. We might force you to cuddle, but not rape you.

most women don't even like sex that much.

Well, either you're full of shit, or the entire publishing industry is.

Therefore, men have a much greater incentive for rape than women do.

Although it's a bit disturbing, it's nice to see someone finally admit that rape is about sex, not power.

It's always about sex...and sometimes about power too, but that depends on the man. People have different fetishes that turn them on - power, bondage, even feet. But no one says, "It's only about feet, not sex!" Sex is the main ingredient.

Whoa!! Lovelysoul, speak for yourself! I happen to love sex and most of my female friends do as well. Cuddling is nice, but I love sex and would not be in a relationship with a man who did not share my love of sex or my drive.
And Brian, you really are a moron if you think for one second that rape is about anything but power and control. I'm starting to think that you need attention which is why your posts have become progressively more ridiculous.

Well, Kristen, I was talking about raw sex, and ONLY sex. I think most women are more interested in the romantic connection, and sex is a part of that. We like lovemaking, but that wouldn't be the kind of sex one would get from rape. I just can't imagine many women being into raping a guy for the raw sex. We don't need to do that to have sex.

And Brian, you really are a moron if you think for one second that rape is about anything but power and control. I'm starting to think that you need attention which is why your posts have become progressively more ridiculous.

Uh... yeah. Ridiculous.

This from the woman whose first post was an unpunctuated, unline-broken mess.

If rape is about power and control, then how come the vast majority of rape victims are young and beautiful? You figure nobody wants to dominate an old or ugly woman?

If it's not about sex, there are far more effective ways of controlling and degrading humans.

It's about sex. You have the pussy, he wants the pussy, and he has the means to take it from you.

You can dream that it's about power and oppression all you want. It's not. It's about getting sex.

The rapist has just managed to make the mental jump required of any petty criminal that concludes that he may simply take that which he wants. It's just a little more personal than taking your wallet.

Brian, you're right to a point, but a lot of rapists are also good-looking guys who could get sex willingly if they wanted. For those men, rape is about power and domination, along with sex.

It's all symantics, really. You can't have one without the other. Most guys love sex, but they wouldn't enjoy rape because the idea of hurting someone would make them sick not hard. But, for a rapist, the idea of controlling a woman is a sexual turn-on. They prefer it over normal sex.

So, you are right, but Kristen is right too. Rape is about BOTH sex and power.

"In my opinion, any woman who would follow through with a false rape claim and send an innocent man to prison is either a sociopath or has some exreme religious and/or social reason to lie about the rape."

"I honestly think the guy believes his kisses and dick is so magical that the woman is really loving it, despite whatever she says. "

LS, I'm afraid this is where we part company. These two statements, juxtaposed, place you squarely among the gender feminists. Basically, what you've just claimed is that all men are sociopaths and either actual or wannabe rapists. And this: "It's always about sex...and sometimes about power too, but that depends on the man", is also a basic tenant of gender feminism -- that hetrosexual sex is nothing but a tool that men use to oppress women. Welcome to Teh Sisterhood.

but they wouldn't enjoy rape because the idea of hurting someone would make them sick not hard. But, for a rapist, the idea of controlling a woman is a sexual turn-on. They prefer it over normal sex.

I think this exposes something about your world view. You're actually quite naive, for all your life experience.

You said earlier that sociopaths aren't all that common. But you're wrong.

The same sociopathy that allows a woman to level a false charge of rape against a man is in play when a man rapes a woman.

He's not getting off on the power. Maybe the small percentage that tie their victims up and then kill them - the chase, and everything else is the thrill and not the sex.

But the bulk of rapists? Sociopaths. It's not that they are turned on by controlling a woman. It's that the idea of hurting someone never crossed their mind.

The guy that tried to feel you up? Same as the one that raped Mo4. You weren't a person. You were an object. The concept that he was violating you never entered his mind. He wasn't thinking about domination. In his mind, every protestation you made was validation that he was doing the Right Thing.

After all was said and done, these guys would almost all say "Hurt her? Hell, she wanted it."

And they believe it.

Cousin Dave, my ex had a rape fetish, so I know a few things about rape.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with oppression, at least political oppression. Men who like rape, which include men who actually rape, as well as those who just fantasize about it, keep lots of rape porn around, which they use for masturbation. Many serial rapists even film their attacks to watch/masturbate to later. If rape was just about "power", as feminists claim, that wouldn't work. The power and control is the sexual turn-on for a serial rapist or anyone who is excited by the idea of
rape.

However, I think a hardcore serial rapist or rape fetishist vastly differs from a guy who might take things too far on a date. That guy just wants sex. He's horny. He doesn't mean to hurt the woman, and wouldn't enjoy knowing he's hurting her. He doesn't keep a stash of rape porn videos around or obsess over raping women. In his excitement, and perhaps inebriation, he simply misreads signals or misjudges the situation. He may think she's into it. That doesn't make him a sociopath. I don't know why you'd say that.

I think we sort of agree, Brian, except you think the date-raper is a sociopath. I don't agree that's true in most cases. I'm not a psychologist, but true sociopathy (sp) is pretty rare.

Oh, Lovelysoul, you are losing me. The act of rape is an act of violence and always about the control, not the actual desire for sex. It is using a sexual act in a way that is meant to punish, control, and degrade the victim.
It is also different from a rape fantasy which is really about submission as a turn on, not really the violent act of rape. Someone who enjoys a rape fantasy with another consenting adult cannot be compared with a rapist. There are men who may have a rape fetish or fantasy, but that is in a sexual context and again about submission just as there are women who have rape fantasies, but about a romanticized version of rape, not the actual real act of rape.
Brian, say what you will. My format is lazy on occasion. I can punctuate and paragraph, but you will still be a moron!

"Yeah, Brian, except I have other women here who have experienced rape and attempted rape. I think momoffour asked you guys how many of you or your friends have actually been falsely charged with rape and no one answered."
-- lovelysoul

"Paranoid and unreasonable?

I've already been the recipient of two fabricated sexual harassment claims. You have a good way to make sure I'm not setting myself up for some kind of escalation?"
-- Brian

"I myself have been subject to both a false accusation of sexual harassment, and a woman who screamed rape because she deemed me unworthy of sitting next to her at a bar."
-- Cousin Dave

And, (raises hand), myself, falsely accused of stalking and harassment back in the 80's. Improperly conducted police interviews, random strangers on the street verbally abusing me, emotional betrayal by close friends, refusal of service at local business, the list goes on.

So that is why Brian's, and Cousin Dave's, and my own examples do in fact count without actual charges having been pressed. They were false accusations, and they had real, meaningful consequences to our lives.

You set the bar for male comparison unfairly high. It's obvious to any rational person. The question now is whether you're going to admit it and apologize for dehumanizing the men in this forum by attempting to shove their actual victimization behind the lace curtain and down the memory hole, or not.

Frankly, I'm not very hopeful that you'll do the adult, responsible, and right thing.

"Feminism did not cause this girl to falsely report a rape."
--Kristen

Apart, of course, from how feminism -- i.e., female chauvanism -- consistently encourages women to rationalize wrongful behavior as being justified through its false characterization of women's victimization in general.

Oh wait. So it might very well have.

"It's extremely rare that a woman would be so duplicitious as to make a false rape claim and see it through. It happens, but it's probably about as rare as a child-predator abduction."
-- Kristen

Actually, according to the best research I've been able to do so far, the difference is somewhere around three orders of magnitude. It's very hard to get firm figures for the number of actual stranger abductions versus parental custody matters, but OOH, according to the 2002 US DoJ study, there were only approximately 115 sterotypical stranger abductions in 1999. OTOH, according to the 1999 NCV survey, there were about 347,000 female claims of rape or attempted rape in the usa. Applying the well-supported (Kanin, McDowell, numerous legal profession commenter estimates) conservative estimate of 35% results in approximately 121,000 false claims of rape or attempted rape. 115 -> thousands -> tens of thousands -> 121,000 = about three orders of magnitude.

Now, I wouldn't try to publish that in a journal, but OTGH, as far as this level of discource goes, it pretty much obligates Kristen to retract and apologize for her own bigoted nonsense as well.

Kristen, not all rape fantasies are romantic, fluffy little silk scarf bondage types. My ex was into violent, realistic rape scenarios. But it's still about sex. Otherwise, the rapist would just overpower the victim and make her shine his shoes or something. Some people are into that kind of submission without sex, but a hardcore rapist is not.

Still, I have to believe that the date-rapist isn't always looking for violence or control. Some may be, but often those rapes aren't particularly violent, just forceful.

And, let's face it, there can be a fine line between the sort of romance novel forceful that women love, and the kind of lewd, unwanted forecful that women hate.

I think this confuses many men. Frankly, it is confusing.

ls:

I don't agree that's true in most cases. I'm not a psychologist, but true sociopathy (sp) is pretty rare.

I'm not a psychologist, but I play one on the Internet. Pathological sociopathy might be rare. But I'd argue that a plurality, if not the majority of humans are sociopathic to some degree.

I've had people try to convince me that humans are inherently good. I don't buy it. People are inherently bad. They're only good because we've developed civilizational mechanisms to make their lives unpleasant when they aren't. People don't much like other people, which is why suburbs and urban living were invented. People don't do well once their density gets above a certain point.

And even below that point, the latent sociopathic tendencies kick in. So you might be right about the people with the rape fantasies - just a kink. But the DB at the bar who's bathed in Axe and thinks he's God's gift to women? He's a latent sociopath who doesn't think that a woman could ever really mean no.

Kristen:

The act of rape is an act of violence and always about the control, not the actual desire for sex. It is using a sexual act in a way that is meant to punish, control, and degrade the victim.

Kristen paid attention in Womyn's Studies. Which would explain why there's no actual evidence to support this assertion. The only rapists who are in it for the control factor are the serial rapists, and they are few and far between.

I think this confuses many men. Frankly, it is confusing.

No, what's confusing is trying to decode what you mean. We've established that "no" means "no". But now we also have to deal with the likelihood that "yes" also means "no", and "maybe" means "no" except when it means "yes", and even then it might mean "no", and I'll get back to you in the morning.

Oh, and Acksiom - nice Pournelle reference.

Acksiom, those numbers are really skewed. 35% of rape charges are false claims? That's absurd. Maybe 35% go unproven, but it doesn't mean they're false.

And, I'm sorry for what happened to you and Brian, but I don't view sexual harrassment charges the same as rape. Besides, one of Brian's was actually reported by a man, trying to get him fired, not a woman.

I agree that sexual politics in the workplace has gotten ridiculous, and that is feminism's fault. No question. But comparing women who complain because they think something you did rises to the level of sexual harrassment to women who would have you arrested and thrown in jail for years, all the while KNOWING you are innocent is a stretch.

As Brian's story demonstrates, the workplace is very competitive and some people, male and female, misuse the rules to get others fired, and/or to get ahead themselves. There's kind of a "whatever it takes to get ahead" mentality in the corporate world that almost encourages lying by both genders. Sexual harrassment is just one tool that is used, but males employ other underhanded methods to deep-six their female colleaques. And, somehow, in that environment, few feel what they're doing is morally wrong.

But it's not like sending someone to jail.

Acksiom, You attributed a quote to me that was not mine. If the quote you pasted as mine is why you feel I need to retract something, then I believe it is you who needs to retract. I have never compared rape and child abduction statistics nor have I made any comments that could be regarded as bigoted.

Wow, Brian, so far none of your quotes has amounted to anything close to what you claim, and I have yet to see any of your statistics or research. I am not in "Womyn's" Studies but I am finding your knowledge of rape fascinating especially now that you are distinguishing the motivating factors behind a serial rapist as opposed to the general everday regular kind. I am amazed at your capacity to astound me with each and every new comment you post. Keep it up, you are highly entertaining.

Considering that you haven't actually said anything interesting, I don't know why I even bother talking to you.

You can live in your own little world spouting the tenets of the sisterhood. Or you can try to do a little analysis of behaviors divorced from the politics of sexual destruction.

You can continue to read what I type and say that it doesn't mean what I said it meant. I don't care.

You think there isn't a difference between a serial rapist and an opportunity rapist? How about a serial killer, a spree killer, a hit man, and a spurned lover? Any differences there that we can analyze and perhaps suss out some deeper meaning?

Or do you just stop at the zeroth order effect of "dead body" and walk away, your curiosity satisfied?

Besides, one of Brian's was actually reported by a man, trying to get him fired, not a woman.

You completely missed the point here. I have to walk on eggshells around women, even women that I know well, because someone else can file a charge on their behalf and there's no recourse. And on top of that, I have to be suspicious of just about everyone in a professional setting, because if I piss them off they can make shit up and everyone believes it.

Just to complete the sordid tale, the false claim was fabricated after I did say something to the woman in question. I asked her how she could do the work she did with 5" long nails. She wasn't offended, but the schmuck in question saw it as an opportunity to make shit up.

Like I said - as a result I have to walk on eggshells all the time. And life shouldn't be that fucking hard because some douchebag thought it was a good idea to say "blow me or you're fired".

Everything is over-reaction. Someone pulls a knife, you drop a nuclear bomb. Whatever happened to proportion?

Sociopaths are quite rare in the population

1 in 25 isnt that rare, And I'd guess that there are many people come very close to sociopathy with out meeting all the recognised criteria

There's a good book, "The Sociopaths Among Us," written by a prison psychologist, who found that most criminals who had a high recidivism rate had certain shared qualities, so he devised a test, and found that they were mostly all sociopaths, but not just them also people in the general population.

I don't recall if he did percentages of the general population, and the prison stats wouldn't be helpful, but the defining qualities were a total lack of conscience and ability to genuinely feel empathy, or really any deep emotion, and with older people, a long path of destruction. They leave a trail of destroyed relationships and emotional, if not also legal, victims. That isn't easy to see in young people, but by middle age, it's quite apparent.

And if you look closely at people, you'll find that they have at least a partial lack of empathy. Like I said, not DSM sociopaths, but certainly exhibiting sociopathic tendencies.

"The only rapists who are in it for the control factor are the serial rapists, and they are few and far between."

Those are your words, Brian, leading one to believe that there are serial rapists and another version of rapist.

"You can live in your own little world spouting the tenets of the sisterhood."

Your words again, Brian. Saying that rape is a real thing and that it is an act of violence, power, and control is not spouting the tenets of sisterhood. It is simply stating a well-known fact about rape that can be looked up anywhere that rape is topic. I would be happy, however, to look that one up and provide you with a detailed list of where to find it.
Again, I am going to be very clear here. All men are not rapists. All men are not sleazy dirtbags looking in some way to screw women or opress them.
I love men. I have 3 brothers whom I love dearly. Many of my closest friends are men whom I also love dearly and who show me on an everyday basis that there are really good people in this world.
Explain to me which part I'm misunderstanding. You are the one that continues to claim that there are more rape accusations that are false than true. You have not once backed that up with any kind of fact and when pushed to prove that what you are saying is true, you fall back on, "oh, don't make me look for it." When pushed again, you came back with a completely different quote from a completely different agency.
You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to think that your opinions are moronic.
Now, other than waiting for Acksiom to retract his negative comments towards me based on a quote that he falsely attributed to me, I am done with discussing this with you as I have discovered it will never be a productive discussion.

Kristen, on the first point, you're correct, and I apologize for the incorrect attribution. You've been waiting this long because my original post got drop-kicked to Amy's spam folder, and I just received autonotice from AOHELL that my email to her was discarded after being held without delivery for three hours.

However, on the second, yes, you do make gender bigoted statements. You probably do not notice their bigotry because of how similar behavior remains normalized in our culture -- a sort of pervasive "background radiation" of female chauvanism and male dehumanization. By those ignorant and self-serving norms, as is the case for the vast majority, your sexism appears to you as unbiased common sense. However, in objective and well-informed reality, it's howling bigotry.

At any rate, since the original quote was from lovelysoul, I look forward with great anticipation to your similar request of her for retraction and apology. Such self-policing by women is, after all, the absolute barest minimum effort necessary for being considered an actual adult rather than a spoiled brat with delusions of royalty.

It might happen. One or two women in here MIGHT take some responsibility for correcting the behavior of other members of their gender. . .you know, the way men routinely do, albeit usually at much greater personal risk.

Because when you get right down the bottom line, as a general rule, we men protect you women, but you women just don't reciprocate. Even in things as minor as this -- just standing up for us on a message board. The vast overwhelming majority of you can't even be bothered to do just that much for us.

And the consequences show up in our suicide rate and our life expectancy and our incarceration rate, but what do you care? It's not your problem, so long as it's not one of the men you personally depend upon. There's always a new replacement population of self-devaluing useful idiots coming along every year for you to exploit without meaningful return.

Take a look at your gender's consumer purchasing sometime if you think I'm just emotionally ranting. Nope, it's all based on brutally honest facts and figures. Most of us have been your unpaid de facto bodyguards and supplementary income sources since adolescence. Tell me, seriously -- what do you do for us that even remotely compares to just that alone?

And yes, there are more exceptions to that here than most places, and I'm grateful to those of you who are, but let's be honest; even here you're few and far between.

Lovelysoul:

"Regarding this study, 41% (n = 45) of the total disposed rape cases (n = 109) were officially declared false during this 9-year period, that is, by the complainant’s admission
that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false."

Furthermore,

"ADDENDA

In 1988, we gained access to the police records of two large Midwestern state universities. With the assistance of the chief investigating officers for rape offenses, all forcible rape complaints during the past 3 years were examined. Since the two schools produced a roughly comparable number of rape complaints and false rape allegations, the false allegation cases were combined, n = 32. This represents exactly 50% of all forcible rape complaints reported on both campuses. Quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge. Other reports from university police agencies support these findings (Jay, 1991)."
-- http://preview.tinyurl.com/pzm3jc

"Charles P. McDowell, a researcher in the United States Air Force Special Studies Division, studied the 1,218 reports of rape that were made between 1980 and 1984 on Air Force bases throughout the world (McDowell, 1985). Of those, 460 were found to be 'proven' allegations either because the 'overwhelming preponderance of the evidence' strongly supported the allegation or because there was a conviction in the case. Another 212 of the total reports were found to be 'disproved' as the alleged victim convincingly admitted the complaint was a 'hoax' at some point during the initial investigation. The researchers then investigated the 546 remaining or 'unresolved' rape allegations including having the accusers submit to a polygraph. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. (It should be noted that whenever there was any doubt, the unresolved case was re-classified as a 'proven' rape.) Combining this 27% with the initial 212 'disproved' cases, it was determined that approximately 45% of the total rape allegations were false."
-- http://preview.tinyurl.com/qlmtdk

As to the legal professionals' estimates of 30%+, they're sufficiently easy to find online that your unwillingness to do so yourself simply goes to further demonstrate your lack of intellectual integrity and adult character.

"And, I'm sorry for what happened to you and Brian,"
-- lovelysoul

Aaaaaand behind the Lace Curtain and down the memory hole go is Cousin Dave yet AGAIN stuffed.

I don't believe you. I don't think you're really sorry at all. Do you know why? It's because your behavior hasn't changed in the slightest. You're displaying just as much sexism and denial and responsibility-evading weasel-wording as ever.

"but I don't view sexual harrassment charges the same as rape."
--lovelysoul

That wasn't the point. The point was that Brian's, and Cousin Dave's, and my own examples do in fact count without actual charges having been pressed. They were false accusations, and they had real, meaningful consequences to our lives.

And when you tell us that you don't view sexual harrassment charges the same as rape, you do exactly what I was criticizing, only compounded. You can't even afford us just the mere decent respect of correctly identifying them as false charges. No, they're just charges to you, because we're not really people to you, because your sociopathy is gender-selective.

And that's most likely why you set the bar for male comparison unfairly high. It's still obvious to any rational person, and the question still remains whether you're going to admit it and apologize for dehumanizing the men in this forum by attempting to shove their actual victimization behind the lace curtain and down the memory hole, or not.

And now that you've done that to Cousin Dave AGAIN, I have pretty much given up hope altogether.

All I'm willing to believe in now is that there might, possibly. . .just possibly. . .be one or two women following this conversation who will step up and call you on your ignorant

Kristen -

Please consider this a final parting Fuck You.

You'll find all the quotations and linkages you need in this article.

It was Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., which begat the Brady Center.

The quotations, outright lies about self defense, and the exhortations to give criminals what they want have been repeated by multiple persons in this organization over the course of the past two decades.

I'm not going to bother debunking your "well-known fact about rape" because I've wasted enough of my life arguing with you.

To quote John Cleese: "It's people like you what cause unrest."

"Explain to me which part I'm misunderstanding. You are the one that continues to claim that there are more rape accusations that are false than true. You have not once backed that up with any kind of fact and when pushed to prove that what you are saying is true, you fall back on, "oh, don't make me look for it." " - Kristen

Kristen, most of the serious studies done have consistently found about 40 to 60% of reported rape claims are false.

Indeed the sociologist Eugene Kanin found that the figures were around that mark. And this is the same Eugene Kanin that during the 1950s and 1960s published various studies on the extent of male sexual aggression in society. So it's not as though he is just someone out to blame women and absolve men.

Ask yourself a simple question Kristen. Why would someone approaching the issue from that perspective conclude that false rape claims are common if it wasn't true? Did the evil patriachy buy him off?

The problem is that you and others who share your worldview have too much of an emotional and psychological investment in the existing narrative of woman as innocent victim, man as perpetrator to consider things differently. Your mind is closed.

Acksiom, the reason I asked for a retraction from you was because you made a negative comment based on a quote that was not mine. It happens.
As far as your belief that my comments are bigoted, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I do not man bash or only take the side of women. I feel rape is a real thing and I also feel false rape accusations are a real thing.
My thought process does not come because I believe the big bad man is trying to keep us little ole women down. As I've stated many times, I have great respect for men. As with any group, there are always a few bad apples. That goes for men and women. Most of the men and women I know are good and decent souls. There are definite biological gender differences and I acknowledge that. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. We are just built differently and sometimes it is a beautiful thing and sometimes it is not.
Lovelysould did nothing to cause me to ask for an apology. As far as correcting my gender, I did disagree with her and told her so in comments above. While she and I may disagree with some things, it has never turned into the personal attacks that some other posters have engaged in. I have always been willing to admit if I am wrong or if I am missing facts. There are others here who will never see another side of an argument. I am not one of those people. I can always see the other side even when I disagree with it and I always respect your right to have an opion that differs from mine. What a boring world this would be if we all thought the same way.

Oh, Nick S, I have nothing vested in being a victim or in painting all men as perpetrators of evil. And I would be happy to look up whichever studies you are talking about. I do believe there are false rape accusations.
If you'd look under my comments under Amy's other post regarding the false rape allegation in England(not sure how this topic turned into that) you would see that I was the only one to mention two of the cases involving celebrities and the fact that I defended these men. I do have sympathy for men, especially celebrity men because it doesn't matter any longer if the allegation is true or not. His reputation suffers a permanent taint and usually he has to pay off the accuser to make her go away. That is not fair and that is not justice. Unfortunately that also ties into my views of the media again, but I won't get into that.
I'd hate to be a male celebrity now. There are too many women looking to get pregnant for the long term pay-out or accuse of bad behavior for the pay-off. It can't be easy for them and I do sympathize though I do think they are crazy if they have unprotected sex with any fan. Pregnancy is one problem, STD's are another.
This was not intended to change the topic, just point out to you that I am aware that there are women out there who do these horrible things. I think that they should be punished severely and I've said it over and over again. It does happen, but I do not believe it happens more than real rape happens. And I know that it is something I could never do to any person no matter how much I despised him and I don't know anyone else who could. That was my point. Not that it never happens.

Acksioum, thank you for detailing the statistics. If those are truly unbiased, it is shocking. The university stats don't suprise me as much, as I would expect young girls, still dependent on parents and first having sexual relations, to lie about rape, but that doesn't explain the rest. I apologize for my ignorance on the stats. This is my first rape thread. That is why I repsecfully asked for someone to share them.

We are all simply trying to learn things here, hopefully in a civil discussion. I always treat the males here with humanity and often defend males, though usually those comments are completly ignored by those of you who are so bitter at women that you can't see straight. It just doesn't compute that I am NOT the one calling YOU ignorant or a SOCIOPATH (I was even defending the men who tried to rape me as not being sociopaths when Brian claimed they were!). Yet, you feel free to debase me and other women here entirely, and to even claim that women have done nothing for males comparable to your own contributions.

That is sad to me. Honey, we birth you, raise you, love you, nurse you, and bury you.

If anyone is showing a complete lack of acknowledgemnet for the humanity of the other gender, it is men like you. But, fortunately, you do not speak for all the males here. Many of them can make reasoned arguments about gender disparities while still being respectful, avoiding personal attacks and name-calling.

Still, your points are appreciated, and I, for one, can do that while wading through your hate-filled insults. But if your goal is really to change minds and hearts, you should try being kinder.

Lovelysoul, I hate to say that I agree with your last post because I'm afraid I'll be accused of siding with you due to your gender. The point is that we are having a discussion and we have listened to both sides. Some of the men here are very bitter and it comes through in their comments. If we were to say similar things about men, we'd get blasted. Hell, we say nicer things in defense of men and still get blasted.
You and I disagreed about rape fantasies, and that was that. We disagree. There were no personal attacks. We didn't call each other stupid or ignorant. We came at it from different perspectives and respected that.
Maybe they are right about one thing. In some respects our perspective does come from personal experiences rather than statistics although there could be 6 different studies and they all would have different numbers. As a woman, I do know several women who have been sexually assaulted. I also know that not one of these women reported the assaultn for varying factors, but mostly because they felt they did not want to got through the humiliation that usually accompanies a trial. Women discuss things on a more emotinal level than men and we tell our girlfriends everything whereas men do not share all the emotional stuff so it makes sense that a woman would cry to her friend about something like rape even while refusing to report it. I am sure that this is the reason that we believe there are so many more rapes than actually reported. We have personal experience with it.
I would also like to address some comments directed at you by the men about sexual harrassment. I agree with you that is not the same as rape in the sense that the victim does not suffer the same long term consequences. In cases of false allegations though, again, a male could very well be destroyed socially and financially by such allegations and never recover, especially in the business world. Because I surround myself with good people who live their lives in a way that is productive and meaningful it is hard for me to imagine that any woman would set out to destroy a man in this way. While it is hard for me to imagine, I don't doubt that it happens. That is the difference between us and some the men here. We do acknowledge that it happens. They want to act like rape is a fictional act made up by the feminist movement.

Thank you, Kristen. I think you write very thoughtful posts, even if we don't always agree.

My impression is that some guys here visit other sites that are full of anti-fem stories, and over time, this has caused them to view all women as biased against men. They've become so conditioned to it that they don't even notice that this isn't true here on this site. No woman would come to Amy's site if she was a male-basher. There are plenty of other feminist-oriented blogs to go to (or so I've heard from the guys, as I've never been to one).

LS with all due respect (which in this case is none whatsoever) you were the one claiming it immpossible for a man o be sexually assaulted.

Tell how, exactly, something you said evidence of my, brian's, Cousin Dave's, and Acksiom's bias against women?

It's the personal attacks, lujlp. Just like that one "with all due respect (which is none whatsoever)." You may think you're being clever, but you just coming off as a snarky woman hater. And I've noticed that you, partcularly, always attack me personally.

I don't include Cousin Dave and Brian in that, as I think they generally attack someone's arguments. At least Brian usually does with me.

And, no, I don't believe a straight male can be raped by a female. Tortured and bound, yes, but not physically raped.

Even if he could be, I suspect there's very few females who would want to rape a man. We're not biologically made up that way.

You contend there all these straight men, who just have unwilling erections and fuck women, while not actually wanting to, and the only evidence you've given to support this theory is that a man can be "forced" to have an erection by having an electrode put up his butt.

Females don't need to go to such extremes to find a hard cock. We can find one on any street corner. We can get laid anytime, anywhere. Straight females simply don't need to rape straight males for sex.

Gay males may sexually assault other males because they physically can, since they have a means of penetration and an orafice to penetrate.

But if you're going to claim erections are unwilling, then you can't exactly complain when, after a drunken sexual encounter, a woman wakes up and claims she was "raped" because she really didn't want to have sex, although she might've seemed into it. In that case, you'd be crying, "How was the guy supposed to tell? That's not rape!"

Well, be consistent. If a guy has a hard-on and he sticks it into a woman's vagina, he can't claim rape. Bad judgement? Sure. Rape, no.

This is just one of those areas you can't equalize the genders for the sake of argument, and it just becomes increasingly absurd the more you try.

LS you may see them as personal attacks but thus far you are the only woman on these threads who can never admit a woman might be wrong.

And quite frankly at this point you are being a bitch, my point about the electrode was that it is possibel thru physical manipulation, one of which is elecricity, to make a man errect against his will.

The body and mind are two spereate things and the body has all sorts of physical reactions that occur outside of consious control.

Dont belive me? hold your breath until you die. $20 says you fail. Why? Beacuse some biological function operate independantly of will

http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html
pay attention to #7

www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361#3

www.springerlink.com/content/t60447681m7531l2/?p=6d3fd72b5d2d42a3a234d56204f59c51

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erection

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_males_by_females

You say I am the one with the bias LS, but you are the one who keeps insisting men can never victims and women can never be anything but.

"My impression is that some guys here visit other sites that are full of anti-fem stories, and over time, this has caused them to view all women as biased against men." - Lovelysoul

LS, I hate to say this, but although I think most women are biased against men to some degree, most aren't biased to the extent you are.

I have known many sensible intelligent women who think it's a joke that women rarely lie about rape. And often these are women who are more sympathetic to women's interests in other areas and don't care much about men's rights. The point is, this is a simple test of common sense and intellectual honesty.

So if women like that can see the point, how much more skewed does one's worldview have to be to believe that false rape claims are as rare as child abductions? Believing that false rape claims are rare only makes sense if one is extremely naive or believes women are all helpless innocents and men evil beasts.

Well, case in point, Lujlp just called me a bitch. I don't know if you do that with your enlightened female friends, Nick S, but that sort of name-calling tends to shut down all productive conversation. Notice that I haven't called either of you, or any man here, the equivalent sort of names.

I don't know how common false rape claims are. That's why I asked for the studies. I honestly thought they were more rare. If we were having a civil discussion rather than a lets-attack-the-female-who-might-have legitimate-questions discussion, then we could talk about what to do and how to protect yourself. I would love to have that sort of discussion, and would with my many reasonable male friends, but I'm not going to have it with men who call me a bitch.

I mean, grow up! Name-calling is the worst, most immature sort of discourse. I'm not an unreasonable person, and I'm completely open to understanding your concerns, as I have a 19 yr old son who could very well be a victim of a false rape claim, but calling me names shuts that all down...as it certainly would if I called you a "prick" or "bastard."

I have a right to my opinion, and I don't believe having an erection is the same type of reflexive physical function as taking a breath. I could go in right now and cover my sleeping bf's nose and mouth, and, of course, he'd fight to breathe. Would he have an erection, I doubt it! Why are you even arguing that, Lujlp? It's obviously because you don't have any legitimate cases of females raping men.

And, you know, you don't need that to gain my respect. It's ok if we agree that there are certain biological and hormonal differences between men and women. There are almost no species where the female is sexually more aggressive than the male. So, logically, rape is a more likely crime to be committed by males. But that doesn't mitigate the wrongness of false rape claims by women.

Let's try to discuss that without name-calling and mean-spiritness. Can we?

LS I call em like I see em, quite frankly I dont see how we can even have a disscusion when you refuse to allow for any veiw but yours being correct or for that metter even imaginable.

You have yet to say that men can possibly be victims of rape - you say that they wouldnt be erect if they didnt want to be. I dont know how many times I've told you that isnt true, I even linked some articles for you - I doubt you read them though

Here is a couple more for you
http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/06/19/woman-on-trial-for-raping-10-men/

charmandrigor.com/clips/details-raping.html

I'll give you another hint, men are sick of hearing were biased chavinst pigs every time we disagree or agrue with a woman, the card has been overplayed and no longer has its desired effect.

And one last time lest anyone here forget it is you who are the bigot, it is you who insisnt that men can never be victims and women always are.

It is you who isnts a erection is proof of consent to sex, one question here, how doy you explain the erections of infants and toddlers? Are they consenting to sex before they can even understand launguage tel alone something as profound as sex?

It is you who claims a 17 yr old girl is a victim of rape if her boyfriend is over 18 even if she dosent thinks so but her parents do and at the same time says a 12yr old boy can never be even if his parent do.

Can you seriously not see your blatant hypocracy? Good god woman you have a bilind spot large enough to hide the moon in

For Christ's sake, Lujlp, she put a ROPE around their penises!

The original point of this thread was about irrational fears. Some rare abduction occurs somewhere in the world and parents fear it will happen to their child. Well, you are of the same mentality. Some bizarre case of "rape" with a rope occurs, and you maintain that men are being raped all over the world. No one can have reasonable discussions with someone who uses such absurdities.

Sexual exploitation and manipulation falls under child abuse. I never said an older woman shouldn't be charged with molestation in those cases, like LeTourneou. But it was CLEAR, OBVIOUS, INDISPUTABLE that the boy wasn't raped! He was in love and couldn't wait to have sex with her. That's not rape. Nor is it rape when a 17 yr old girl has willing sex with an older man, and fully, completely says, "I wanted to. I loved him!"

I personally don't consider either of those scenarios "rape". It's an abuse of power with a minor, which falls under child molestation.

And yes, the male will likely be charged and prosecuted more severely, which I tried to explain was often a result of the difference in parental pressure, as well as our culture, which says a girl is devalued by sex, while a boy gains status and prowess. We want our girls to remain "pure" and our boys to gain prowess, so many people involved in the legal system, as well as the general public, don't view it as much of a crime.

You and your anti-fems blame feminism totally and refuse to acknowledge the cultural influences at all.

If you're sick of being seen as a chavinist, then stop acting like one. Your writing is full of personal attacks against almost any woman here.

Btw, babies and little boys have erections, usually when they need to pee, but they are certainly not long-lasting enough (or generally long enough) for a woman to have intercourse with. But, oh well, nevermind. I bet you fear that too. Let's scare parents with that now. Watch out! Some crazy woman rapist may jump out and hump your baby's wee wee while his diaper is being changed! Talk about spreading wild, irrational fears because of a warped view.

Try again LS, I wasnt formenting fear as you calim. I was providing examples, that you once agian go miles around to intentionally miss the point, that ecrections do not equal consent.

So thank you for proving my point.

Second, she tied a rope round their penises and tht shocked you? Good, yet somehow you still wont admit that an erection is not proof of consent, why is that?

As for me and my fellow anti feminists, just so I can make this perfectly clear I am anti any group that seeks to further themselves at the expense of others, all we want is fo people to be held to the same standard.

Are there differences between the sexes? Of course there are, biological, physiological, but that is no reason not to hold everyone to the ame stanndard under the law.

Whould you refuse to prosecute a bank robber, murderer, drunk driver, theif, or arsonist because they were a woman?

I doubt it, but you are willing to make an exception here.

You know what my biggest problem with you on this subject is?

Its the fact that you see nothing wrong with it. I understand male impulses to protect women, even from themselves. But what sets humans apart is our minds which are abe to assert rational control over our animal instincts.

If you were to say of this situation
1. that you undertood why it happens due to human nature
2. that it doesnt make it right
3. that we should be working to change it
4. because while some male children do enjoy it and move on with no adverse affect many dont

Then I wouldn have problem with you.

But so far you have only said statment number one. And you have nade it very clear you have no problem with it and treat the thought of any man being a victi of rape with the same callous indifference you felt you would have been treated with.

One last thought, I never said men were being raped 'everywehere all over the world' All I said was it happened, was being ignored, and it wasnt right.

What is so threating to you about admiting that?

Lujlp, I did say those things. I understand why this happens due to human nature, but I also said that doesn't make it right. I am against the same statutory rape laws that I assume you are. Consentual sex should be viewed and prosecuted differently from rape. It is not rape, whether the "victim" is male or female. I have said all that.

The problem is that you guys tend to miss those statements because you're so ultra-sensitive to males being viewed unfavorably that any area where males might statistically be seen as "worse" than females, you rush in to equalize it. "Well, women rape too!!!"

No, they really don't. Not grown men and women. You were mixing child molestation in with rape, and I was talking about adults, or at least those past puberty. I mean, yes, everything has probably happened at least once in history, and with the internet, we can find at least a few example of almost any bizarre, abbherent behavior, but that doesn't mean it's common. To me, the rope lady was torturing those men. I doubt she got much of an erection with a rope while the men were unconscious.

But, nevermind such a whack-job, what worries me is that you seem to venegefully want to have women charged with rape in obviously consentual cases. Yet, my solution would be the reverse - to stop charging EITHER males or females with rape when the sex is clearly consentual.

That doesn't mean my daughter's history teacher should be able to flirt and start up a consentual sexual relationship with her, a 15 yr old, without facing severe consequences and jail time. But, to me, the charge should be child abuse, not rape.

And, if my son, age 19, has consentual sex with one of his sister's friends, who he has grown up with and are his peers, then it shouldn't be a rape charge either. Kids within 5 years of each other are social peers, in my view. Statutory rape charges in those cases are unjust. Consentual sex just isn't the same as rape no matter who it involves.

Really, I don't think we disagree in so many areas. I just think you presume to know what I believe solely because I'm a woman.

"The problem is that you guys tend to miss those statements because you're so ultra-sensitive to males being viewed unfavorably that any area where males might statistically be seen as "worse" than females, you rush in to equalize it. "Well, women rape too!!!" "

That may be the case LS, but you do pretty much the same thing. Whenever women have certain advantages over men, such as a greater capacity to ruin men's lives through false allegations, you want to find any excuse to dismiss the whole issue (such as claiming that false rape claims are so rare that it's not even worth considering). It's kind of a 'move along, nothing more to see here' defense.

Of course it's true that there are certain biological differences between the sexes that mean it is less likely for a female to force sex on a male than the other way around. And it is silly to ignore these things and pretend the sexes are always the same. The trouble is that too often the whole 'men commit rape' line is used to promote the notion that women are morally superior to men, when biological differences are not the same as moral innocence or guilt. Even if it is not explicitly stated this way, that is usually the subtext or implication. A lot of men are tired of being constantly vilified and shamed in this way.

LS, I am all for acknowledging differences between the sexes. Just don't pretend those differences always favor men and disadvantage women.

Well, Nick, just because I'd like to presume that women are not as bad as you guys claim doesn't mean I believe that men are worse. I assure you that if someone said that males made false claims about anything 45% of the time, I would dispute that also. I guess I have a hard time believing either gender is capable of lying to such an extent.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I come from the rural south, where people can still be trusted, doors are left unlocked, and business is still done on a handshake. As a result, I have faith in the inherent goodness of most people, male or female.

Yet, I'm under no illusion that women don't lie; it's just to what degree. If I claimed 40% of men were liars, you guys would be upset and doubtful too. We're talking about what sounds like an implausible percentage of a gender population.

I was thinking about the false rape claims, and, like I said, college campuses seem to me loaded with young girls experimenting with sex for the first time. They get caught, or get pregnant, and suddenly consentual sex is labeled "rape". That isn't so suprising.

Military bases I really know nothing about, except that when my brother was 19, and first stationed, he was targeted by a hispanic woman who was clearly looking to marry a soldier for military benefits. She was even still involved with her ex husband. She took my naive brother for a ride. Got pregnant, claimed it was his, he married her, they had another child, then she went "back" to her ex, after she'd secured child support, etc. I don't even believe the kids are his, as they don't look like him, but he has refused DNA testing.

So, my perception of military bases, based on that family anecdote, is that they may attract a higher percentage of female scammers and liars.

I also base that view on having watched the movie, "An Officer and a Gentleman" four times........(that's a joke, guys!).

"Criticism of Dr. Kanin's report include Dr. David Lisak, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Men’s Sexual Trauma Research Project at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. In the September/October 2007 issue of the Sexual Assault Report he states “Kanin’s 1994 article on false allegations is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations.” He further states “[ Dr. Kanin] simply reiterates the opinions of the police officers who concluded that the cases in question were ‘false allegations.’” Lasik cites page 13 of Investigating Sexual Assaults from the iNternational Association of Chiefs of Police which says polygraph tests for sexual assault victims are contradicted in the investigation process and that their use is “based on the misperception that a significant percentage of sexual assault reports are false,”. Lasik goes on that “It is noteworthy that the police department from which Kanin derived his data used or threatened to use the polygraph in every case… The fact that it was the standard procedure of this department provides a window on the biases of the officers who conducted the rape investigations, biases that were then echoed in Kanin’s unchallenged reporting of their findings.”

If you're going to polygraph every victim, then most of them would retract. I think the stories we have told here about ourselves and our friends who have suffered rape and never report it demonstrate that most true victims of rape are reluctant, at best, to come forward. It is shameful, degrading, and frightening. Most victims just want to put it behind them and try to pretend it didn't happen. The idea of having to be polygraphed on top of that would certainly motivate victims into saying it didn't happen, so they could drop it. So, I don't find Kanin's study or his figures credible.

LS, I think you are confusing the issues somewhat. Claiming that a large percentage of rape allegations are false is not the same as claiming a similar percentage of women in general would lie about rape.

Suppose, for example, if 1% of all women filed false rape allegations over a given time. Even if the other 99% of women would never do such a thing, the 1% could still constitute a large proportion of all reported rape cases.

So claiming that 50% of all rape allegations are false is not even close to claiming that 50% of women in general would do such a thing. I have no doubt that the majority of women would never make a false rape allegation. But there are a significant proportion of maladjusted women who would.

It seems that no one really knows the true statistics.

"Michelle J. Anderson of the Villanova University School of Law states: "As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown." The FBI's 1996 Uniform Crime Report states that 8% of reports of forcible rape were determined to be unfounded upon investigation, but that percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges. A British study using a similar methodology that does not include the accusers who drop out of the justice process found a false reporting rate of 8% as well. DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, they generally agree on a range of two to eight percent."

Glennsacks.com has a study posted showing 18%. So, even if it's that high, it's nowhere near to the 45% number that you guys use, and that's what bothers me. You take the most extreme numbers out there, rather than the more likely and balanced numbers.

Then, if any of us women say, "Whoa, that number seems illogically high," you accuse us of being ignorant, in denial, and/or biased "feminists" or female apologists.

You will note that I don't do that to you guys. Whenever I quote stats, I try to find the most unbiased sources. If the stats conflict between different studies and the numbers aren't really certain, I will say so. And, like I said, if the roles were reversed, I would be the first to doubt that 45% of men doing or claiming ANYTHING would be liars.

When you see a number that high, especially one that conflicts with most other studies, then the fair thing is to conclude the study was likely flawed or biased somehow.

"And, like I said, if the roles were reversed, I would be the first to doubt that 45% of men doing or claiming ANYTHING would be liars."

Well, if someone suggested that 45% of men filing their tax returns make at least some errors or omissions in their favor I would not be that outraged or indignant.

But I think you are falling into the aforementioned trap of pretending that the genders are the same whenever it suits you. The reason men are less likely to make false allegations against women is simply because there is less incentive to do so. For a man, it would be silly to level a false allegation of (say) domestic violence against a partner because it is unlikely he would be taken seriously or that the authorities or anyone else would do much about it. So what would be the point?

The other obvious difference is that women generally operate on a more emotional level than men, so things like false allegations to get sympathy come more naturally. Men have other ways of doing things, and are usually taught to keep their chin up and not whine.

LS, as for the Kanin study being biased, the fact is there have been plenty of studies done that show between 40 and 60% of rape allegations are false. That is hardly the only one, or some kind of extreme and biased example.

The only reason I mentioned Kanin is that he was the same person who did much research into the extent of male sexual aggression during the 1950s and 1960s. All I was saying is that it is interesting that even someone approaching the issue from that perspective ended up coming to the same conclusions about the extent of false allegations. That's all.

Well, Kanin should've realized his methodology was flawed. Demanding polygraphs is naturally going to deter women, but that doesn't mean they aren't victims.

My college roomate was raped freshman year by her boss at a grocery store. He lured her to a stockroom and raped her. She was only 19 and he was 50-something. She cried for days, totally devastated. We all urged her to go to the police, but in her state of mind, she didn't think they'd believe her. If she'd even mustered the courage to go there, a polygraph or accusation she was lying would've surely scared her away. She'd probably have had a mental breakdown if not treated sympathetically after what she'd been through.

Therein lies the problem. Clearly, many more rapes go unreported than reported. So, there are rapists getting away with it, repeatedly. I'm sure that wasn't her rapist's first time, nor his last.

It would seem, just from the stories here told by us women regarding our own rapes, attempted rapes, or our friend's rapes, that most honest women who are raped almost never report, while apparently, some unknown percentage of women who do report rape lie.

One would have to have a certain personality disorder to desire that kind of "attention." In fact, I imagine a personality test could easily be devised that could pinpoint those type of women, because a true rape victim obviously doesn't want attention. They usually want to clean themselves up, curl into a fetal position, and try to forget it ever happened.

It's a very tough situation because if we make it even harder for victims to come forward, then even more of them won't, as a whole lot of them aren't now, which means we're letting rapists continue to walk the streets and threaten our daughters, sisters, mothers, etc. Yet, if we don't make it harder, false rape claims threaten our sons, brothers, fathers, etc.

I am founder of the world's leading internet site giving voice to those falsely accused of sexual assault, Western Civilization's taboo epidemic. In recent years, our society has declared war on rape, and numerous measures have been adopted to make reporting rape easier than ever. It also has become easier to make false rape claims. In the process, we have allowed an entire class of victim -- those falsely accused of the vile crime of rape -- to be treated as nothing more than collateral damage in what many regard as the more important war on rape, despite the grievous harm falsely accused men and boys often suffer.

Every unbiased study ever conducted on false rape claims shows that they are a significant problem, and objectively verifiable data indicates that likely close to half of all rape claims, and possibly more, are false. Yet sexual assault counselors often disingenuously refer to false rape accusations as a "myth."

Victims of false rape claims cut across every socio-economic class but are almost exclusively male. The crime of making a false rape report has become unnecessarily gender-politicized and so embroiled in the radical feminist sexual assault milieu that it has been improperly removed from the public discourse about rape.

While we have made reporting rape claims, both true and false, easier than ever, we refuse to address the special needs of the presumed innocent men and boys who are charged with rape, and who too often turn out to have been falsely accused. By any measure, denigrating the experience of the wrongly accused by dismissing their victimization as a "myth" or as unworthy of our discussion, much less our protection, is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque.