Child sexual abuse by women isn't exactly now . But this article raises interesting questions...for the law...society etc.

"A huge rise in the number of children calling to report sexual abuse by women has been revealed by ChildLine.

Over the past five years, the charity says the number of such calls has risen five times faster than youngsters reporting abuse by a man.

Of 16,094 children who called ChildLine about sex abuse last year, 2,142 told of abuse by a woman, up 132% on 2004-5.

Men still account for the majority of child abuse claims, but the NSPCC said female sex abuse was under-reported.

This is because there is a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of professionals to acknowledge or identify sexual abuse by females, the charity suggested.
Many would find it shocking that any woman - let alone a mother - can sexually assault a child."

The above is an exert from a BBC news item.

THIS ISN'T an excuse to unload on women. so DON'T!

What it represents that bad things get done by women too.

What interests me is why some women do it too. What are the implications Society, our way of perceiving strange...
how will you warn your children without instilling more fears in your children etc?

Dear Examinator,

Sexual abuse is an obscene betrayal.
It's part of a category of sex that
is very dark - like rape, incest,
molestation, abuse of any number of
varieties, centered around sex, then
painfully lodged in the victim's souls.
Millions of people are thought to carry
the burden. It's unimaginable how anyone
would touch a child, yet many people do.
That anyone would rape, yet many people do.
That anyone would have to suffer such a
terrible degradation, yet many people have
and do.

The fact that the abusers come from both
genders - male and female - only goes to
show that mental illness is not restricted
to any one gender.

Why do women do it? That's a difficult question
to answer as few of these people try to get
professional help, and many of these cases go
unreported. There appears to be quite a lot of
disagreement on exactly what constitutes mental
disorder. To complicate matters, most mental
problems have no known physical causes or
definitive symptoms. This means that there is
rarely a simple, clinical test to determine if
and how someone is mentally disordered. The decision
often depends on the opinion of trained observers -
who often may not agree among themselves.

I agree with Foxy, many of the child sexual abuse crimes are perpetrated by very mentally ill men and women who were more than likely abused themselves when they were children.

This fact does not in any way condone sexually abusing other children, but rather goes a little way to explaining why, in most cases.

In all the years I have dealt with mental health issues in the community, there has never been one child sex abuser of any age or gender, that had not been abused themselves. We need to find a way to break the cycle.

Examinator, I am worried that this topic will quickly degenerate into another anti-women hate-fest, as you have pointed out could happen.
No one has ever said that women don't sexually abuse children, just that they are far less likely to do it than men.

Are people that suffer from road rage any indication of mental instability. Or is that different all together.

Just to clarify something from the outset, isn't rape, rape, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim?

Child rape wherever it occurs and under whatever circumstances is a very nasty offence worthy of serious punishment, right?

Just wanting to clarify things before some get too misty eyed about the (speculated) poor upbringing or mental state of perpetrators.

Doubtless there would be some perpetrators who could be classified to have serious mental disorders under DSM-IV, but I would hazard a guess that most perpetrators do have some control over their actions and choose to commit their crimes.

Willing to be convinced otherwise, as usual.

Cornflower, I don't think anyone is suggesting that child sexual abuse isn't a very serious crime.

Examinator was asking why women would commit such crimes on children?
We were thinking a past history of abuse to themselves may have been a contributing factor. It doesn't excuse what they did though.

The same obviously goes for male perpetrators. I agree there are some child abusers who choose to offend against children purely as a pathetic, sadistic and twisted form of sexual release.

These sort of pedophiles should never be released.

The fact remains however, that if we try to understand why the bulk of these offenders do what they do, then maybe we can stop the beginnings of the pedophile nature for the future.

We can't just do nothing.

Examinator, interesting discussion, thanks.

Why do they do it? Foxy says it's mental illness, yet I don't recall anyone suggesting that all of the (male) rapists in jail are mentally ill. In fact, the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, which claims to be "best practise" in the field, says that rape is all about power dynamics. I'm not completely convinced, but it's been quoted regularly.

In previous threads on related topics, there is usually at least one apologist for female abusers who pops up with "oh, but they spend so much more time caring for the kids", which is true - 90% or more of single-parent households are headed by the mother. It is also true that with the rise in female-headed househholds has come a massive rise in female-perpetrated violence reports.

There are several possible explanations for that: women are becoming more violent; the absence of a man in the house to blame means that women's violence and abuse is becoming more visible; definitions have been broadened to include behaviours that have not previously been considered significant; children are being made more aware, via education and advertising, of their capacity to make a complaint. I suspect it's a combination of all of them. As a child I can recall several mothers of schoolfriends who all the kids were scared of Possibly it was because dads tended to be invisible to kids in those days, busy earning money for the family, but just possibly those women were actually nasty to be around and even enjoyed bullying young kids.

The stats show ever more clearly that our current male-vilification campaigns are not reducing violence or abuse, they are simply giving violent and abusive women a sense that they have carte blanche to be that way. After all "girls can do anything" and "only men are violent" is the message that's been pushed for years.

However, let's not forget that the total numbers are low, depite the hysterical headlines. Most parents are neither violent nor abusive and it is very dangerous to make broad law based on relatively infrequent worst-case behaviours.

Examinator,
Are you saying 16094 children in Aus made complaints of sexual abuse last year. That doesn't sound right to me and I have never heard of a Childline service in Aus.

If it is such a concern here, why do they not operate in relation to FGM and forced marriages.

We have laws against these practices but not one person has ever been charged with an offence relating to either. We do not even keep stats on the instances that come to attention.

It is obvious that some groups have immunity from the law.

Well yes some do but the statistics would appear to be much lower - 25% according to the linked article.

Villification and targeting of women, single mothers or men in general won't help us do more in the area of sexual abuse.

Women also commit other crimes like theft, shoplifting, assault at times - I am not sure what the point is?

It is a bit like saying well women eat food too? Yeah... and..!

Banjo and All

Childline is the British service equivalent to Youth line in Aus. The article is from the BBC as stated.. sorry if I gave the impression that it was AUS.

The issue I was raising was that there has been such a dramatic increase in reporting it seems to be indicating that it is a crime that has been under reported before. Logically if it occurs in UK one is fair to say it happens here.

The implications are many and varied. I merely wondered what others thought if there was a correlation with male offenders and what that means for the way we as a community behave.

I wonder why we don't see lynch mob mentality explode when women are brought to court like they did with Ferguson? This especially so given his clear modus operandi. Conversely there was a 30 yo woman baby sitter who seduced a 14 yo boy and his 10 yo sister she got 18 months? why? The prevailing view was that it would take the boy 6 months to get the smile off his face. But what about the girl?

NB when I raise a topic it is simply because it may bring out some interesting thoughts. It very, very rarely means I'm grinding an axe.I am as stated before an info junkie and between two cultures so I'm curious why logic doesn't prevail more often.

Its A True Fact Women Do Rape Children And It Has Been Un Noticed By Many For A long Time And Always Everyone Think It Is Just Men That Do These Thins To Children

A Question Also , It Is Not Just The Mentally Ill That Does That , Their Are High Profile People In The Most Highest Job Positions In Australia

Such As Politicians, Lawyers , Judges, Police Officers, The List Goes On, So Why Is This Suject Only Being Placed On People With Mental Illness

If These Crimes To Our Children Happen That Is A Mental Illness For Sure , But I Don't Hear Any Of Your Responses Here , saying Any Of Those I Have Just Mentioned Have Mental Illness ,

A Lot Of The Comments Are Refering That Everyone With Mental Illness Come Under This , Subject,

Just Recently Here In Newcastle A School Female Teacher Was Invovled With A Young Girl In A Sexual Relation Ship, This Is also rape Of That Child ,

Im One Who Has Been Fighting Against Rape To Our Children By That Of Our Goverments Covering All The Rapes Of The Victims The Forgotten Australians,

Yet None Out Their Never Beleived Us Becaue Their Heads Were So Far Up Their Ass They Didn't Want To Know About The Rapes And Abuse We Victims Suffered And They Were The Very People Who Had Power And Control Over Us When We Were Children While Under Their Care ,

As For People Who Abuse Our Children Their Is No Excuse And Using The Mental Health For Their Their Excuse Is , Is Dicrimitavite To Other Mentally Ill Paients Who Have Never Harmed A Child

These People Are Just Shear Child Pretators Whom Prey On Our Young And Need To Be Placed In Gaol For The Rest Of Their Life And This Is Where The Death Penalty Should Be Brought And Introduced In Australia , Cause Some Of The Crimes That Have Happend To Us Are The Worst That A Child Could Ever Happen To Them

A Real Forgotten Australian

huffnpuff,and the Forgotten Australians.

Did I not hear that there is to be an apology given by both the PM and the Opposition Leader on the 16th November 2009. That is only a few days away, so good for you and all the effort we know that you put into acheiving this. The good things take a lot of work to get. I knew you could do it. Persistance is the key.

I only caught the end of the announcement, so may not have it quite right, but am really pleased for you and all the others. I could not be happier and cannot think of a more deserving group to receive an apology.

Congratulations on your acheivement and best regards

Responding to huffnpuff's informed comments, I am wondering why, where the definition of rape is so broad, there is an apparent dearth of reports of rape of children, including by women.

Thinking about the focus of this thread, has any rape crisis centre ever recorded a female rape of a child?

"The prevailing view was that it would take the boy 6 months to get the smile off his face."

One of the interesting questions is how best to look after a group of boys who might not see themselves as victims and might not benefit from being labelled as such.

Obviously there are good reasons to prosecute these criminals and raise awareness of this issue, but lets not forget the boys involved.

ImO both Huffnpuff and cornflower have valid points. I have had concerns about the definition ever since my nights on crisis intervention counseling.

I detest Labels as they are invariably wrong and based on ignorance or prejudice. The problem is that our laws out of necessity of consistency have been written in definitions of black or white, yes or no.

Extenuating circumstance are only applied at sentencing and then in tight parameters.
The problem is people jump to often emotional or cultural driven conclusions because it sure beats thinking about it.

Like the lad involved in my example I have mentioned a a street wise girl almost 16 and how the 'black letter' of the law screwed both her and later, her hubby over comprehensively.

"While the law is both blind and sure, people should not always be either." E14

Most mentally ill people are more of a danger to themselves than others. They're human and have good days and bad days are sweet and sometimes cranky who isn't?

'my nights on crisis intervention counseling.'

They're becoming as legendary as Hyacinth's 'Candlelight suppers'

"The prevailing view was that it would take the boy 6 months to get the smile off his face."

I think that is still the prevailing view and it's one that makes it especially hard for men and boys to talk about the effects on them of rape or sexual abuse.

The difference is that some evil old scagg takes what she wants from someone vulnerable (even if so by hormone rush) and too young to know better. When any adult takes advantage of a child; they are satisfying their own selfish wants at the expense of the child's well-being and life choices. Like, a male child victim can still get venereal warts and other STDs., just like any female child victim.

If the adult perpetrator has some demons from the past that manifest as current addiction or mental health problems; they also have every opportunity and the personal autonomy, to seek appropriate help.

Child sexual abuse is despicable - NO excuses.

H
You remind me of the angst of a teenager, who doesn't know what they stand for but objects to anyone who does or why.

Your criticisms are as shallow as is your reasoning. Tell us all what front-line committed effort to have you done? I think you'll find that experience count for more than naive prejudice based musings of an armchair critic like you. Where's you contribution?

BTW You weren't the target of my point. Not everyone trawls the site like you.

We all get it, you don't like the way I put things...that's YOUR problem. Why read my posts if they're so annoying?

Tell us seriously if you have the guts what DO you STAND for(not relating to anyone else) and why?

I would be interested to know. You claim you have hidden depths, do you? Put up or shut up. At least I put myself out there not playing safe games.

Thank you all for contributing your comment.

Pynchme

While I tend to agree with you many people don't realize they have a potential problem untill it's too late.
Most people are loathed to admit even to themselves they have this problem. Largely because of the stigma attached to these sort of feelings.

The guy on the telly who was proactively seeking help for his feelings for pubescent girls is a rarity and would be fearful if the public found out about his issue.

Many on OLO would react badly if he was a neighbour and they got wind of it. Even though he's done nothing but think. Let's get real, if thinking about something not socially acceptable was an actionable crime most would be in deep do do, #$#@&! politicians, bosses, some neighbours with cats etc.

This was one of the issues I attempted to raise with 'de-sexualizing' the law. The moment sex is involved hysteria takes over and rational thinking dissipates. Connect that with children and it becomes absolutely incendiary.

H
You remind me of the angst of a teenager, who doesn't know what they stand for but objects to anyone who does or why.

Your criticisms are as accordingly shallow as is your reasoning. Tell us all what front-line committed effort to have you done? I think you'll find that experience count for more than naive prejudice based musings of an armchair critic like you. Where's you contribution?

BTW You weren't the target of my point. Not everyone trawls the site like you.

We all get it, you don't like the way I put things...that's YOUR problem. Why read my posts if they're so annoying?

Tell us seriously if you have the guts what DO you STAND for(not relating to anyone else) and why? I would be interested to know. You claim you have hidden depths, do you? Put up or shut up. At least I put myself out there not playing safe games.

Pynchme,

Your attitude really surprises me. So by that reasoning if a 14yo boy has sex with a 12yo girl, maybe you don't see him as an abusive rapist abusing his power? If so at what age do men turn into abusive rapists?

pontificator,

I'll give you a big hug if you want?

Sounds like I have really hit close to the bone. Oh Hyacinth, we love you even if you like to talk about yourself so.

'who doesn't know what they stand for but objects to anyone who does or why. '
Or why? I don't 'stand for' anything. Actually I stand for humility and self-effacement and not looking down your nose at people. Which is why you annoy me. What do you 'stand for'?

'Tell us all what front-line committed effort to have you done?'
to have I done? I wouldn't grandstand like that. Jesus says when you do good deeds and give to charity and the like, you should do it discreetly. You may like to put yourself up as 'better' than the other posters like you did on the Kyle and Jackie O thread, but I think it's unseemly. That's what I 'stand for'.

'You claim you have hidden depths, do you?'
Do I? I thought I was 'shallow'. Well that's what everyone keeps saying. My general response is that nobody knows much about anyone on here. I like to pull you up on your big noting yourself and reflect your high horse attitudes back to you. That it upsets you so much confirms to me that there is a lot of truth in what I say.

BTW: A lot of what you have written on kids and sex really seems a bit creepy to me. Now obviously that confirms your reasoning in your last post, but I fear more and more for those kids you counsel.You just seem a little too interested in this kind of thing. I hope if you have any of these 'thought's' you get some help and stay away from counselling young people.

Houellebecq:<So by that reasoning if a 14yo boy has sex with a 12yo girl, maybe you don't see him as an abusive rapist abusing his power? If so at what age do men turn into abusive rapists?">

Wtf are you smoking?

I was talking about older women abusing their power, as adults, over male children. Where did a couple of youngsters come into it?

Btw - if both people are under the age of consent and there is no more than 2 years between them; it might not be the subject of charged of rape. Different factors come into play.

What we are talking about here is ADULTS foisting their revolting attentions on youngsters and taking away the youngster's choices in the process.

Btw: Your rant against 'Zam shows you as a small; small person - throwing out grubby inferences like that against his character while at the same time running around yourself as a champion of exploitation.

What a nasty little dweeb you are.

pynchme,

Since when have I ever run around as a champion of anything. pontificator says I stand for nothing. Anyway I was abused by a counsellor with the same demeanor as pontificator and I think abuse is always swept under the carpet because of attitudes like yours enabling it. People often 'cry for help', and this guy is a counsellor, with access to young people, bemoaning the fact that people people lynch people with these 'thoughts'.

'Many on OLO would react badly if he was a neighbour and they got wind of it. Even though he's done nothing but think. Let's get real, if thinking about something not socially acceptable was an actionable crime most would be in deep do do, #$#@&! politicians, bosses, some neighbours with cats etc.

This was one of the issues I attempted to raise with 'de-sexualizing' the law. The moment sex is involved hysteria takes over and rational thinking dissipates. Connect that with children and it becomes absolutely incendiary.'

That could very easily be a self-justification. All I have done is query him and encourage him to get help if that is the case.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. At what age do these 2 year difference in teens turn into a classic misogynist abusive male and a helpless virginal innocent female?

15yo boy and 12yo girl? What about a 15yo girl and a 12yo boy? What about an 18 you man and a 15 yo girl? What about an 18yo woman and a 15yo boy? Tell me at what ages the sex is acceptable to you? Both ways around.

This makes me cranky and sick - never mind the completely nonchalant expression on this child sex abuser's face:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/female-teacher-admits-sex-with-students-20091117-ijj0.html

What if she's given those youngsters herpes or worse?
What if she'd become pregnant?
What about the fact that some girls won't want anything to do with them?
What if either of the young fellows had been considering a commitment to the priesthood or something like that.
What if this woman has distributed pics of them?

This makes me FURIOUS and utterly dismayed. Both should be in gaol and personally I believe that people like this should be prevented from having any more children. Perhaps they could be given some sort of reversible procedure or be administered slow acting prophylactics.
Poor little kid. I hope somehow he has it within him to overcome the effects of what has happened to him.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-accused-of-posting-sex-assaults-with-son-9-online-20091117-ij7a.html

I can't believe that the boy's father still has the temerity to expect to have contact with his son. Despicable.

Those are the sorts of things we're talking about Houellebecq.

An 18 year old, if nobody has raised the possibility with them that it really is ok to delay gratification and not bonk everything just because their penis says so; should be doing so with someone in their own age group. However, as I understand it (and have observed), if a parent permits it, a 16 yr old can form a relationship (even marry I think) someone who is 18.

If both are under 18 - that isn't an adult exploiting a child. I don't think the law pulls out all stops as long as there is no more than two years between participants and there is no claim of rape or abuse. Personally I think it would be wise to discourage a young bloke from having sex with someone under age, irrespective of what the law or parents allow.

Btw: I don't see why there need be all this urgency to have sex. No reason why young people - all people - can't contain themselves a bit and make more thoughtful and considered choices.

'never mind the completely nonchalant expression on this child sex abuser's face'

Media studies 101 for you. It's an attempt to show the woman as sexy and titillate the readers. Lucky boys is the subtext. I wouldn't worry, she's not likely to get a sentence comparable what to a male teacher would recieve.

I find it interesting that you think no psychological damage could occur and no effect on future relationships. Out of 5 things, that didn't even come up. Considering the priesthood even came up.

When a young girl wants sex with a teacher, there's all this concern that even if she is actively pursuing him it's only because she wasn't loved enough by her daddy, and she really just wants attention. There's the assumption this will affect her emotionally and have a bearing on future relationships.

But when the other way around, the only damage in your eyes is an STI and pregnancy and such.

I've often heard girls mature emotionally about 2 years in advance of boys. A 16yo girl and an 18yo boy is often a pretty even match

Pynchme,

I'm currently watching our Turtle tank with some concern, despite the hot weather, given the imminence of hell freezing over....I tend to agree with some of what H is saying.

Given the probable mind set regarding sex and 16 yo boys I doubt that any serious long term harm has been done there. (this of course is dependent on the specific lad involved)
Notwithstanding, she HAS broken the law.
The picture is pure staging... Media 101 as H has pointed out.

However, I have serious worries about the the second story that is clearly wrong on so many levels.

In essence, I hold the view that each case should be judged on their potential for harm. Not solely on some religious dogma influenced cultural arbitrarily drawn line. Keep in mind, that 21 was once the accepted age...then 18 ...now 16.
What has changed other than our attitudes?

NB.IMO Both cases deserve punishment. If I were a judge on these cases I MIGHT hand out different sentences simply because the potential for harm/re-offending are so different.

Zam you could only agree with Houellebecq if like him you read it from the perspective that I should have listed every type of harm. Just because I didn't list psychological damage; doesn't mean I don't perceive it. It's an absolute given in any adult/child episode of these types, as you'd be aware I am sure.

The listing of the priesthood Houellebecq isn't because of MY belief system; but because it might be his - I listed a broad type to demonstrate how an adult using a child can extinguish some of the child's life choices.

I do think the parents abusing is likely to do more damage (bleh like choosing between being bitten by a croc or a shark) because parents are the very foundation of one's beliefs about self. In either case though the damage that can be done by a breach of trust of either magnitude... anyway, the little one was younger/ both parents involved/ had been happening for longer... maybe pimped out as well. All that.

I'm undecided about the emotional maturity thing between an 18 yr old and a 16 yr old, but in general I think I agree about the level of harm .... certainly even if there was any it wouldn't be in the same ballpark as a breach of trust by someone who is an authority figure who is meant to protect and guide.

I agree about the media pic and sub-text - however, I thought the very existence of my post conveyed that I don't agree with the "lucky boys" POV.

H: <"When a young girl wants sex with a teacher... ">

That's assuming that a young girl both knows what sex is and wants it.
What if she was being affectionate because she had some romantic notion of love and marriage (or summin). In any case it doesn't matter much at all what the student wants; it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the adult to say no

'That's assuming that a young girl both knows what sex is and wants it.'

Congratulations! You're starting to get my point. It is ALWAYS assumed a young boy wants it, even as young as 13yo. Which is why her sentence will be much lower than if she were a male teacher sleeping with a female student.

If laws were to reflect the general attitude of society the age of consent for boys would be 13, and for girls 18.

In fact, with a lot of the feminist musings about the abusive predator male and the innocent virginal female, a 14 year old boy sleeping with a 17 year old girl should see himself in a lot of trouble.

Example...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/woman-who-had-sex-with--boy-avoids-jail-20091118-il7k.html

Can you imagine this if it was a man? Honestly?

<"with a lot of the feminist musings about the abusive predator male and the innocent virginal female">

I've never seen any "feminist musings" of that type. If you can come up with any examples please share them. In fact, feminism in general is very opposed to stereotypes of that sort.

Anyway here's an assortment of links showing that sex doesn't seem to have much to do with offenders getting off lightly - maybe about time some updated research was conducted on the issue. Anyway:

What about this demented Judge and co. who said this case wasn't to be referred to as rape and that it shouldn't be assumed the boy didn't consent:

<"In the committal hearing earlier this year, Darwin Magistrates Court heard that the boy had been bound with shoelaces and drugged before being repeatedly sexually assaulted"> [ about 5 male offenders all substantially older than the 11 yr old.].

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sex-abuse-of-boy-not-rape-judge/story-e6frg6po-1111115148535

http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2006/10/10/1760120.htm

http://news.theage.com.au/national/paedophile-avoids-jail-over-child-porn-20080115-1m3x.html

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/sunrise/124/tegan-wagnerstory-of-a-rape-victim/

http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/eyeq/archives/2007/08/sex_assault_sen.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/17/2306998.htm

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22899771-3102,00.html

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/doctor-convicted-of-rape-set-to-practise-20090521-bgdy.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s10729.htm

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2007/10/16/beach-groper-given-suspended-sentence/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/little-girl-faces-sixth-trial/story-e6freuzi-1111112507288 - don't know if the last trial went ahead or any conclusion was reached - but the system certainly did all that it could to discourage and intimidate the little victim.

http://www.mako.org.au/makomedia17.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418016.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/gang-rape-judge-in-new-child-sex-furore/story-e6frg6oo-1111115556917

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sex-abuse-of-boy-not-rape-judge/story-e6frg6po-1111115148535

"They can prove the victim was a child, that the offender was an adult and that there was penetration," Mr Johnson said.

"But they might not be able to prove consent or the absence of consent."

I thought no child could 'consent' to an adult? It seems aboriginals cant be charged with rape, I remember another story like this with a young girl.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/paedophile-avoids-jail-over-child-porn-20080115-1m3x.html

'if he had been sentenced last year he would have been out of jail a month ago'

ie, he has already been in gaol for 12 months, and it's for porn not rape.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2007/10/16/beach-groper-given-suspended-sentence/

I note that you still confuse rape with groping. All nicely under the banner of 'sexual assault' to inflate those 'rape' figures huh. And no I'm not saying I condone groping. Although I was groped earlier this year by a woman at the pub, so I guess I have been 'sexually assaulted' (ie raped, as they're used interchangeably) too.

Anyway that's enough reading for today Miss Pynchme. I have no desire to play google tennis. Anyway there is much more male rape cases than women, so if you really love googling so much find me the women who have done lots of time for their rapes. Your links, while interesting, do nothing to disprove my point.

Houellebecq: You're the one making the (another) unsupportable assertion that men get punished more harshly for sex crimes. I provided links to a range of sex crimes where sentences were of questionable harshness. I also said that it's an area that may be worthy of updated research because it's not clear to me whether there is a sexual bias in sentencing or not.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/12/15/teachers-s-xual-relationship-treated-like-murder/

I have explained before that categories for sex offences vary from one jurisdiction to another. I don't know how the term sexual assault came about (do you?) but I believe that it's legal utility is supposed to be that seriousness of the assault can be graded.
However, it seems to me that penetrative sexual assault still = rape.

I recall a time when rape referred only to penis in vagina and under such law, anal penetration of men, women or children and acts using any object ( sticks or bottles etc) or any other body part were not called rape. Under that limited definition of rape, men could not (in law) be raped; no man, woman or child could be raped (in law) by a woman. The broadended definition at least recognizes that women can also be perpetrators and they can be held accountable under law. Btw I believe that rape laws in Scotland are still fairly cro-magnon but may be under review.

There are other labels for a random squeeze of someone else's bits, like indecent assault perhaps. In the workplace maybe a claim of sexual harrassment will apply.

http://www.yarrowplace.sa.gov.au/booklet_law.html#2

I also understood that no child could give consent; I have no idea who the dopey spokesperson in that article was but obviously I disagree with what he's quoted as saying.