Kia kaha Foxy,

I wish for your memories of him to be complete and the choice he made for release a quiet reflection on a man you held in your regard.

Kind wishes to your mother and her family.

Dear Foxy, so sorry for your loss.
Hope to see you back here in print soon.
Best wishes, Sue.

examinator: "I'll bet that victim and the Mormon are glad you're neither a police officer nor a judge."

If I were choosing, punishments would be based purely minimising future harms, not on the harm just perpetrated. I realise is unusual, although not that unusual - you occasionally see parents that aren't that interested in vengeance. A short term jail sentence is deterrence enough for most, but if the odds of a repeat offence are high and the potential harm is great throw away the key.

As for how good a judge I'd be - I hope I would have the fortitude to put aside my own prejudices and act as an impartial arbiter of the law. As for whether the victim would like that - I hope they would, as it is the best they can hope for. If I could not be a good judge, then I guess how much the victim like me would depend largely on how much they wanted personal vengeance.

As for how good I would be at policing - I don't know. More to the point I don't see how you could know from my comments here. They seem to imply you think the police are also judge, jury and executioner. They aren't - their job is merely to encourage people not to break the law, and find people who do so.

I see male rape as no different from the other indignities we males often inflict on each other. I recall male students were made to run through the city naked one being delivered naked to their parents house, with a capped beer bottle rammed up their bum, and another getting seriously injured from being bashed for no good reason outside of a pub. As I recall none were treated too seriously. I personally only treat the last, which had the potential to inflict long term bodily harm, as seriously as male female rape. Male rape doesn't fall into that category.

And me trolling? It is true I was trying to provoke a response. But I also meant: "I think you were wrong".

The Pied Piper: "I completely missed this before. Sorry Mr Stuart."

I am afraid I did the same thing with your post.

As for the confusion - I think it may be about the two different points of view - male and female.

When you said "my thoughts would be rape is all about sex because it is the use of sex to degrade or take power". It appears from what Jayb said that is how a female perceives it. Maybe the thing females hate is loosing the final say on who has sex with them; who fathers their children, perhaps? I don't know, as I ain't a girl and don't think like that. But it seems reasonable to assume that this loss of control is viewed by you girls as men taking power that is rightfully yours. So you deduce men want the power, and this is what motivates them.

What I am telling you is that is wrong. When a man rapes a women he isn't thinking about taking power. Sure he does take that power, but that is only because he has to get what he really wants, which is sex.

As your husband said, if they wanted something else there are far more efficient and less risky ways of doing it than rape. Why leave a DNA sample behind if you just want to see her scream in pain - just set her on fire. If mental pain gets the kicks, torturer her kids. If its power, put them on a chain. In reality, these things almost never happen. Once in a year perhaps, in a world of 6 billion. In contrast rape is once a day in your big city.

As for de-sexualising rape - I actually agree in one way. Crime should not be about sex - it should be about harms caused. The complication with rape the harm is caused by sex, and the harm varies depending on which sex is being raped. It is the very essence of a sex crime, so does de-sexualising it make sense?

Rstuart and others
I too misunderstood what you meant.

Then again your example of the beer bottle is hardly justification for different laws for F/M.

It does however prove my underlying point that this instance had more to do with regressive tribalism means of power driven sexual humiliation ('man up' crap). To then say this is males differences is to assume that we are the sum of our genes. Which is a gross over statement of the dominance of genes. This attitude ignores in influences of nurture and the frontal cortex. All of which added together create factorial computations of Combinations/permeations to the variations and degrees of possible consequences.

Regarding the pack M/M (penile)sodomy of an unwilling stranger, the idea that it engendered anything less than lastingly traumatic consequences, comparable to that of similar act or rape of a woman is nonsense. It is obsolete legal speak/attitudes and a perversion of the principal of blind (non biased) justice in gender, race etc.

Notwithstanding, I think almost every one is looking at it from an emotional religious driven cultural mores (RDCM,indoctrination/ conditioning), perspective. Not an analytic drilled down as intended..

From this perspective it is irrelevant as to what either the perpetrator (self rationalised)or the victim's emotional response I was aiming for a non RDCM status of the act.
At this level sex is a biological function including the odd fetish so what is actually taking place is that is so abhorrent? I therefore agree that the Power Abuse, force to assert their desires OVER those of the victim is the crime.

I then argued that by changing the law we would then send a message to the community that SEX per se isn't a big deal ...less salacious reporting/ ads/ movies in short attempt to de sensationalise sex.

Focus on the the real crime rather than just the sexual side of it.

Additionally it would have the (most important) benefits of de-stigmatising the victim but punish the perpetrator for their ABUSE of Power by force/coercion etc.
I have modified my original views slightly.

Exam:“Focus on the the real crime rather than just the sexual side of it.”

Okay. Umm…. Can’t. Can’t see it. Totally confused. I bet a victim keeps asking why as well. They would want to know - oh ya know what – a victim would want to know there was something wrong with that person otherwise they would internalize the whole thing and the act would become about them not the perpetrator.

“Real” would be perspective yeah?

“Additionally it would have the (most important) benefits of de-stigmatising the victim but punish the perpetrator for their ABUSE of Power by force/coercion etc. I have modified my original views slightly.”

Me too. Or I think I have, Mr Stuart is making more sense to me although I agree with you about de-stigmatising it being of more benefit to the victim. And even that I don’t understand because calling them a victim is a bit of a stigma anyway.

MrStuart:”...Sure he does take that power, but that is only because he has to get what he really wants, which is sex.”

So are we talking about a drive and not say someone who has a particular fetish like a serial rapist has who isn’t happy any other way. And right there I think we are back to the law being about the impact on the victim and not the intent.

The injured party has to be acknowledged and I would say they are usually female and they feel someone just had sex with them without their consent. They need a sexualized law to back them up. The male who forced sex needs to have that acknowledged (like a diagnoses to receive counseling/services)that he did to it in a way, as you suggested, that also denied another human of any control and therefore power in the situation.

Bullying I think it is called in a milder way. Bigger, stronger, take what you want. Incest, statutory rape, pedophilia, date rape, child sexual abuse... selfish, cruel and made by choice.