rstuart: I'll never accept the lame idea that men are inherently "emotional cretins " - who thereby gain special dispensation to grab what they want without regard to anyone else's well-being.

These are the reasons that excuse won't wash:

1. There are too many men like my "oppressor" (as JamesH says - gave us a laugh anyway), who don't seem to have a problem with the idea of "Yes" as the basis of a sexual encounter, to accept a convenient stereotype that all men are "emotional cretins".

2. There are many things men need or want in life - like food, music and song. Can you give an example of any other area of life where society approves of men just taking what they want off somebody else? Like - you're hungry - do you just routinely walk into a shop and stuff your mouth with food? Isn't it so that men are qute capable of negotiating with a shopkeeper or whomever to obtain what they need/want in an acceptable and respectful manner.

3. The agreement of 12 peers is hardly a useful litmus test of what is humane and good. The 12 peers only reflect the social mores of their local social context. If the law didn't change over time and from place to place then our 12 peers would still be executing or gaoling people for homosexuality and putting children in the clink for stealing lumps of coal, or something.

One of my pet annoyances is the habit of many men; which is duplicated in major social systems, of making out that there is something unstable or lacking in a woman who doesn't comply with patriarchal demands and expectations. Medicine (psychiatry in particular) bursts with examples. In that vein, I see Nina and Fractelle referred to as "unaware" and "obtuse". If communication breaks down (ie: rape occurs) because of men who claim it's beyond their biological capability to comprehend YES or NO, then a case could be made for literacy classes as a rape prevention measure. In any case, they do deserve full blame for the "communication breakdown".

In an ideal world both men and women would get there needs met, and nobody would get hurt.

Sadly something like 80% of human communication is non verbal, and there can be conflict between the verbal and non-verbal. ie "I'm telling the truth!" as the person who is saying that, plays with their chin whilst looking the floor.

Nina, people have used phrases like "how about we go to my room" as an indirect way of suggesting that they have sex, or "how about a coffee" after a night out (I know the gays use this one).

Nina as you correctly point out someone who is stiff, silent and not moving is using body language to indicate that they are not participating.

Even asking first is NO legal protection, because when it comes down to, it is she said, he said.

Think about this...

If I get invited to a banquet and yummy food is laid out on beautifully adorned tables for the taking, then I assume - note that word, 'assume' - that I may freely gorge myself on any and all of the delights on offer. Naturally, it is likewise assumed by the host/hostess that I shall act in a civilised fashion, display good manners and treat others with cordiality and respect.

Such things are a matter of good manners and upbringing. So too are normal human sexual relations. They are a matter of familiarity. Getting to know people over time and knowing beforehand what to expect of others and what they expect of you. It's all a matter of human decency.

One thing is for sure, I certainly don't expect, at this banquet, to be required to ask the hostess for permission to taste or sample each and every morsel on offer. To do so would be tiresome and destroy the flow and spirit of the occasion. And so too it would with sex.

If I have the good fortune to be invited to a woman's pleasure, I certainly don't want to become engaged in a debate with her about permissions. It would destroy the flow and spirit of the occasion. Frankly it would put me right off.

And now to the topic. These girls who sent nude pictures to young boys, what was their intent?

Were the boys asked if they wanted them? Was decency displayed here? Or was it 'assumed' by the girls that the boys would not say 'no'.

Did the girls seek the boys' permission before sending them?

Perhaps we need to educate girls more fully on being responsible about their sexuality. These young girls were certainly sending out strong messages about theirs.

It is proper and just that the girls were charged. But it is unjust to charge the boys, who were simply gullible victims. Just because they didn't say 'no', is not a reason to assume they meant 'yes'. Is it?

Pynchme: persuade you to accept something despite you having said, "No thanks"

Yes, another way it can all go wrong - persistence transitions from a compliment to annoying to aggravating to stalking. Somewhere along that continuum it becomes illegal. I don't see anybody here arguing it should be otherwise. Why did you bring it up?

Pynchme: There are too many men like my "oppressor" .. who don't have a problem with the idea of "Yes" as the basis of a sexual encounter

Quantify "too many" and quantify at what point their numbers become small enough to ignore when making laws, so if when they are wrongly jailed we can write off the collateral damage as "for the better good".

Pynchme: "lacking in a woman who doesn't comply with patriarchal demands and expectations"

Or we could be getting pissed of at the instance of self appointed matriarchs like yourself at having the final say in how we all should behave. In any case laying down laws on how people should or should not behave isn't wasn't what I trying to do.

Pynchme: "The agreement of 12 peers is hardly a useful litmus test of what is humane and good."

I try to deal with the world at it is, rather than insisting everyone behave according to my precepts as to how it should be. Getting consistent outcomes from 12 peers is a good way of gauging what reality is. You obviously have a vision of how the world should work and a partner that concurs - good for you. But as far as I can tell, your vision of how the would should be doesn't match how the majority of our society behaves, or indeed how any society does. Your crime is insisting we all change our ways to match your vision, and we should be happy to jail those that get into trouble because they couldn't.

ninaf: "all individuals should take full responsibility"

Sounds like our positions are not that far apart.

I don't know to what extent "rapes" are due to miss-communications. Before reading Fractelle's comments I thought it likely it was a small proportion, but Fractelle experiance gave me pause. To the extent miss-communication is the problem, you can attack it by instructing both genders to correct the miss-understandings and behaviours that caused it. Tell the girls to not assume the boy can read their mood or feelings. If they don't make it obvious via a "no" or a shove, a disaster can result. Equally tell the boys not to assume the girls will be explicit about what they want. If they are unsure ask, or again disaster may result. In other words move both parties towards the middle, and hopefully they will meet.

The reason I am posting here isn't because I want my definition of rape to prevail. It is because I think in try force our imperfect justice system to bring about a better result, you re-define the how path to sex works in order to make prosecution easier. Its perfectly understandable give what happened to you. Obviously it doesn't work - society at large doesn't accept your version, but to the extent you manage to get anyone to believe it, you are doing harm.

You are trying to fix a miss-communication that originates in how men and women think the other behaves. You don't fix the problem by teaching another model of behaviour that is just plain wrong. That just introduces yet more confusion. So saying the expected behaviour is the boy always asks and won't proceed unless the girl says yes isn't helping things. Boys will simply ignore it - because most males don't work like that, and probably never will do so no matter how much Pynchme rails or lobbies to get laws passed to say we must. If the girls assume we will behave like that, you are creating an environment where more there will be more miss-understandings, not less.

oh dear, rstuart, you're going to have to be chastised for disagreeing with the grrrls. Fancy thinking that women are actually capable of making their own wishes known instead of relying on a man to ask first! Fancy thinking that a woman might be capable of saying yes and then changing her mind, but may still choose to go through with the act! Fancy thinking that women are equally as capable and responsible as men! You, you dirty rotten Patriarch...

The would-be matriarchs are nothing if not cynical. While knowing full well that most women and most men manage entirely satisfactory negotiations, they are quick to use the tiny number who don't as leverage to claim authority just as they try to do with children, all the while claiming to be mere helpless victims, blown by the winds of chance and the will of those horrible men.

It's really quite pathetic and entirely transparent, yet it's worked for them to the point that they have enjoyed power without responsibility for quite some time now. Just look at any Court: a woman can instigate a crime, can contrive a plan to have others help her carry it out and will walk away with half the sentence of any men involved. Even if she and he were equally involve, she'll say "I was scared of him" and get a slap on the wrist.

In Family Court the game is changing a little to give fathers some hope of fairness and haven't the grrrls fought hard against it? No one wants to lose their meal-ticket.

In the meantime there are literally thousands of women employed in the women's victim industry. If someone is making a good professional wage that they'd be unlikely to get elsewhere from a job whose sole justification is the victimhood of others, they would have to be an extraordinary person not to seek to increase the class of "victims" they can claim as a constituency. Only Erin Pizzey has come forward to date and that was after she was forced out of her job by other womyn.