Now let me see

before we had burkaas and hijabs we had rape
before we had mini sikrts and bikinis (phwooarrr) we had rape
before we had porn we had rape.

Rape was invented about the same time as wars were.

And, if any of you bright sparks ever have the balls to stop thinking from your pants (both male and female) and actually approach the issue as a COMPLETELY violent act then all the research data actually falls into place.
Rapists don't have a history of other sexual pervesions but they do have a history of violence. Wife bashing, poofter bashing, wino bashin. That sort of thing..

Sparticusss

If you take a careful read through court judgements delivered when rapists are being sentenced you will find that many do not have any 'history of violence' what so ever. Some do, yes, but it is not a common characteristic.

Many do not have any criminal histories at all, except for the rapes.

The male and female teachers who have committed sexual acts with under age students, which can be considered as rape, as rape can be best be described as any sexual act in the absence of informed consent, (people under 16 not being able, under the law, to provide informed consent) have not had histories of violence as such.

They are in the same position as anyone who takes sexual advantage of someone else who is either too drunk, drugged, asleep or otherwise incapacitated so that informed consent cannot be given.

Often these rapes are not what we would normally be considered as 'violence', except they inflict unwanted activity upon an unwilling person, and that is also a definition of violence.

Rape, is more widely legally known in this country as aggravated sexual assault, because that is what it is, an assault of a sexual nature. There may be no threat, or battery, or infliction of bodily harm, but that does not stop it from being violence.

The violence however is inherently sexual in many (not all) cases.

Add to this that a person must not assume that consent is given, it is necessary for a person taking part in sexual activity to be certain, virtually beyond reasonable doubt, that consent has been given. So even if a person does not consider that he or she is a 'rapist' because they haven't heard the word 'no' or they haven't been resisted, that doesn't stop them being a rapist.

Even if a guy, after a party, finds a naked woman asleep in his bed, and she has been close dancing and flirting with him earlier, he cannot assume that she has consented to sex. He has to seek and obtain consent, otherwise find somewhere else to sleep.

A good lesson:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2006nswcca.nsf/6389480b59cf41ecca2570e6001cb3e1/c283950507c46695ca25722f0001eb3b?OpenDocument

Just because a woman is lying on a bed with no underwear, exposing her genitals, doesn't mean that she wants sex with the guy that she is exposing herself to.

As soon as this guy walked into this woman's house and realised that she was (a) drunk and (b) exposing herself to him (if it had been a drunk male in the position of exposing himself to her he would have been charged with something - but go figure) he should have left the house, without fixing the computer and gone home.

And he should have never seen her again. At all, never, and he should have told his wife, and everyone who knew them both, how she acted and why he will never see her again.

The consequences of her actions ahould have been ridicule, not rape.

If she cannot act with dignity in front of a man who she considered as a father figure she should not expect to for him to act as a father figure to her.

He deserves his punishment for the sexual assault, and she is completely blameless for that.

In not replying I guess BOAZ_David has made a sexist comments, he cannot provided proof that his one line came from The Bible and he cannot provided evidence, of his comments about Buddhist or Muslims?

Let's get this topic back on track. The good Sheik was again hammering home the orthodox Islamic point that the hijab is an essential part of civilised society. That is, there can be no equality of the sexes without women covering their head and all of their body. The assumption is that men cannot be trusted to control themselves in normal society.

In this regard he is totally wrong. There can be equality of the sexes without women covering their head and revealing what they want to reveal. A man, especially a Sheik, dictating to women what they should put on in the morning is patently sexist and against the ideal of equality.

Yet another attack on aussie dress taste and freedom by what is obviously an extremist group.

http://www.triplemrocks.com.au/shows/brekky/index.php

An attack on the good old Aussie Budgie Smuggler.

"We're on a mission to clean up the pools and beaches this summer with The Cage's Budgie Smuggler Amnesty."

Think I'll have to wear mine to the beach this summer in protest at this attack on my freedom to dress as I want.

R0bert