The Pied Piper: "So are we talking about a drive."

Precisely. I wasn't trying to discuss the topic examinator raised. I was taking exception to the feminist concept of "for men rape is about power". It simply isn't - even for serial rapists. The idea that rape for men is about power ranks right up their with Freud's theory of mental problems in the majority of women being caused by penis envy.

As for examinator's proposition, maybe it arose because as the rise and rise of sex is casual demonstrates, today unwanted sex is of almost no consequence. What, physically is the difference between this and say the man forcing a long tongue kiss? Today with universal contraception, and RU-486 is it very small.

The difference in psychologically is huge of course. Women's attitudes and reactions to sex were fashioned during the millions of years where contraception didn't exist and casual sex was unheard of.

Thus the reaction you get from women is because it was sex that was stolen, as opposed to say their handbag. So if it is all the fuss over rape caused by peoples instincts towards sex what hope have you got of removing it from consideration? Much as I like the idea that the punishment should match the physical harms caused, and I agree those physical harms of rape have been reduce to almost that of physical assault, the idea has about as much chance of flying as a lead balloon.

Actually, studies of women's reaction to rape is fully of surprises. For instance, it turns out the emotional impact of rape reduces with outward signs of physical harm - well up to a point anyway. Thus the more a woman can demonstrate she struggled and was physically forced to have sex, the better off she will be emotionally after the rape. (For those of you who follow ninaf - this dovetails nicely with her repeated descriptions of her own injuries.) A woman is also more likely to get pregnant to a rapist than her own husband. You women are weird creatures at times.

Mr Stuart,
You have still missed the point,
You are still looking at it from a cultural perspective(which has been influenced by Religion.)

You are a tad egocentric aren't you, note the address and the deliberate second line for the last sentence. It was to signify to all topic.(perhaps it could have been a separate para).

What it meant for you that I'll expand the definition was trying to clarify my views.

The problem as I was attempting to argue it goes like this
Religion influences Culture (attitudes) defines the Law.
Religion causes SEX and gender bias in Culture.
This creates encourages an over exaggerated Gender differentiation in matters other than the Physical(animalization of humans...ignores the roles of Prefrontal Cortex, circumstance etc.)
Therefore Religion therefore influences the Law to be gender and SEX biased.
I believe everyone has the right to PERSONAL religion etc
Therefore Religious bias from the Law and you change Attitudes in Culture.

In the final analysis The observer needs to look beyond religious/cultural values but above the animalisation of human for the truth. There is more than the two extremes to the topic.
IMO discussions in extremes is pointless, particularly on this topic.

'I have modified my opinion' meant I concede that most people don't understand (that DOESN'T imply anything pejorative). Just that I accept the consensus as the limits for these topics on OLO.

examinator: "note the address and the deliberate second line for the last sentence."

Sorry, I don't know what words you are referring to. If you really are referring to lines beware they will be displayed differently on different computer screens.

examinator: "The problem as I was attempting to argue it goes like this ... most people don't understand"

I will happily be included with the most people who don't understand. Whatever point you are trying to make is beyond me.

Your original point was that rape should be considered "Grievous Bodily Harm". I am not a lawyer and could not be bothered looking it up at the time, but it seemed to me Grievous Bodily Harm must involve some sort of physical injury. Now it I look it up on Wikipedia, it appears that is exactly what it means. Wikipedia says Grievous Bodily Harm involves inflicting a wound, where wound is legally defined as "an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm

So if I were to take your proposal at face value, you were in simplistic terms suggesting we limit definition of harm caused by rape to the amount of skin breaking that went on. You support this by saying it would make rape (and I quote) "Easier to prove". That is both true and obviously absurd.

So then you introduce religion, and cultural values and other things and assert how women perceive rape is determined by those things. Well it might be influenced by those things, but the reaction is common across cultures, religion and centuries. It obviously goes far deeper - which is another way of saying your assertion is just plain wrong.

It is pretty clear we treat rape as seriously as we do because because it cuts into our deepest animal instincts. It is also pretty clear that is not going to change. I don't see how any attempt to separate the two could succeed, and I don't understand your arguments on why we should attempt it.

Rstuart,

Not every culture perceives sex with the over emphasis that some of the larger organized religion do.
Our culture could be considered as obsessed with sex to the point where sex is inculcated into everything. ads, fashions, even foods as for the media ...well!

In some other cultures rape is perceived in the same terms as 'GBH'.
Victims of sexual crimes aren't singled out for sensationalism and stigmatising like they are in ours.

I found in counseling victims much of the psychological problems suffered by victims, including men, were obvious projections (perceptions) induced by Religiously influenced Cultures.

History is full of examples of why it was important to cultures to be able to prove parentage. It isn't biological but learned/conditioned.
I am not saying totally but the bulk of it is.

Consider why lesbians were never criminalised yet male homo sexuality was. Apparently Queen Victoria was appalled by male on male but wouldn't accept that women would be homosexual. The bill was altered and passed accordingly. The link between the two is the religious perception of sex.

My intention is/was to stop the sensationalising and deep stigmatising of sexual crime victims.

My reasoning to eliminate the traumas a victim must deal with both in the courts and self perceptional stigmatising afterwards.

In time this may de-condition the public to get vicarious pleasure from either the details of sexual violence or the extreme religious inspired vigilante mentality.

In some instance the punishment for rapist is disproportional to the circumstances.

If this means re-writing GBH descriptions where's the big deal. Changes to the crimes act are common.

It seems to me that to get bogged down in cultural perceptions or bogus 'animalised' instincts are two extremes missing the workable truth. Either extreme are unworkable because one has to deal with irrelevant baggage the other is determinism on speed.

I hope this explains where and why I offered this topic.
In hind sight I wouldn't have bothered given the now apparent uniqueness of my non cultural reasoning processes. Also given the level of commitment to religious influenced cultural reasoning.

PartTimeParent here. Sorry if I was not clear.

I am talking about the "female sentencing discount" (Google it). Women who commit crime, especially women who commit sexual crimes, are given shorter sentences than men, and women are far more likely than men to get a 'non-custodial' or 'suspended' sentence.. meaning that they don't go to jail at all.

And women journalists go to great lengths to excuse a female pedophile... "it was a cry for help", "she was looking for love", "she was a victim of childhood abuse", or the worst "he asked for it" (what hypocracy from feminist journalists to blame the victim!) Yet a male pedophile is justifyibly vilified, regardless of his childhood of serial sexual abuse...

Men die younger (mostly from preventable causes), do worse at school (although 20 years ago they did as well as women), Consequently almost two-thirrd of uni students are women. 90% of ADHD children are boys. Men are more likely to be obese (also preventable), drug abusers (also preventable), victims of violence (and perpetrators for violence, as men live in a more violent world than women).

For the same qualifications and years of work, men earn LESS than women, per hour. Especially if you consider that almost all the dirty, dangerous, remote and 'low-status' jobs are done by men. Men are UNDER-paid, compared to women. In fact, for Australians aged less than 30, women earn MORE than men... THe only reason that all men have a higher average income is because few women have a serious commitment to PAID work after they have kids, since the prefer to have a plesant "work-life balance", leaving their husbands to do the overtime and pay the mortgage.

I'm not making this up, research citations available.
PartTimeParent@pobox.co