Female sexual assult and how it's treated

[Baron Max]

didnt i just say it was illegal?

Is that the only thing that makes it bad, Asguard, the legality of it? A law that set the age limits? A law that was passed by a bunch of legal eagles in the congress?

For example, in Afghanistan I believe, 12-13 year old girls are regularly married to old farts and it's perfectly legal. So is sex with 12-13 years old okay there? And you're okay with it?

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

no but that is a compleatly different topic from the purpose of this thread. The thread topic has to do with the way male and female offenders are treated for commiting the same crime

 

[John99]

Asguard, humans view male and female sexuality differently. This is true on every corner of the planet. Less so in western civs. but it is still there.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Viewing it differently doesn't make it different.

 

[John99]

in a sense it is because males are external and females are internal. but this gets into psychology too much. also emotional difference and personally i believe that women have always been more advanced in may different ways but that is another issue.

 

[takandjive]

It should be a big no-no in any part of the world. The real question is, when is a person capable of making decisions about their sexual activities? Should they all be lumped together or should we separate various sexual activities? In truth, we already do even though we don't even think about it; hugs, touches and kisses are generally thought of as more benign then skinny dipping with friends and skinny dipping is below 'the deed' (aka sexual intercourse).

I'd argue that's different for each kid and depends on the partner on when to have sex.

I don't know if skinny dipping is really connected to sex. My old roomie and I never slept together. She saw my genital piercing because I wanted to show her. I've been to naked hot springs. Not about sex.

Vili Fualaau first had sex when he was 13 with his future wife, teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who was 34 at the time. She was jailed, had a kid, got out. They went at it again. She was jailed again, had another kid and got out again. By that time, Vili was of age, got the restriction from seeing her lifted and married her a while after. What -I'm- waiting for is for society to apologize to them. It may happen after my time. They did write a book though: translated from french, it means, 'only one crime, love'. I haven't had the opportunity to read it, even though I do know french to some extent, but perhaps some day.

Why does society owe them an apology? Mary Lee committed a crime. She seems to love the guy, and they stayed together. She shouldn't have nailed him when he was 13. Given my druthers, I'd aim for jury nullification because I could guess the punishment would be unfair compared to male statutory rapists.

Apparently you didn't notice, but Orleander made no mention of statutory rape. She said it was rape. So did the article, although the article also said sex. Perhaps the legal charge was 'statutory rape'. It could have been consensual as well. The boy may even find it to be a good event marred by society's messing with his love life, as I believe Vili would describe his relationship with Mary Kay Letourneau, or at the very least, that it would have been if society hadn't decide to get puritanical on his sexual partners.

You don't have to tell me about the problems with sexuality in the West. And someone else answered the statutory rape stuff. Until I see the same evidence the jury did, I'm going to have to generalize, and the kids I know who got entangled with consensual sex with adults have been emotionally damaged. I live in the sticks; it's pretty common.

Sooner or later I think we'll realize that the most important thing is to make sure that abusive practices aren't occuring regardless of age (sexual harassment in the workplace, anyone?), instead of thinking that age differential should be the most important thing to watch for.

And, sugar, I think you're 100% right, but in a world that abhors sex and shelters young people from it while bashing us with hypersexuality in the media, we've got to also protect youth from the mess we've made, and that means looking at all aspects, including the possibility of adults sexually exploiting kids.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

Yeah women are allowed to be sexist and men aren't. This is another example of it. I think you could have picked a better male example though.

Just like "White"/Caucasian/European-looking people cannot show any prejudice, where everyone else can be damn near openly racist and not fear reprisals.

Just like I whenever I fill out an application and they have that "Are you a white guy?" question, under the lovely laws of "Equal opportunity" in Canada...I never get an interview(even if I'm over qualified) - EVER.

Suck it up and overcome I guess.

:bugeye:

Someone send this guy to a doctor, please.

 

[draqon]

:bugeye:

Someone send this guy to a doctor, please.

...unfortunately he is correct.

 

[takandjive]

No offense, but white men are privleged. Yes, this is upsetting to those outside the dominant paradigm. Spitting in their faces isn't useful, but unless you've been marginalized because of your sex, disability, race, or sexual orientation, I don't think you understand the degree of hurt.

Affirmative action was created so certain people didn't get thrown out of play, not to cut others because they were too mainstream.

 

[scott3x]

scott3x are you talking about my artical because if you are you will NEVER find the words "statitory rape" in an australian artical. It doesnt exist

Interesting. But no, I was talking about Orleander's article.

the terms are sexual penitration of a person under.... (age decideds the penelty) or just unlawful sexual penitration

the media dont even bother, they just say that ... is aleged to have had sex with a ... year old

Kudos to you Australians for not mixing the term 'rape' with unlawful sex .

 

[scott3x]

No offense, but white men are privleged. Yes, this is upsetting to those outside the dominant paradigm. Spitting in their faces isn't useful, but unless you've been marginalized because of your sex, disability, race, or sexual orientation, I don't think you understand the degree of hurt.

Affirmative action was created so certain people didn't get thrown out of play, not to cut others because they were too mainstream.

If affirmative action discriminates against any group of people, it's discrimination; saying that others were discriminated against first is kind of like a kid saying 'he started it!'. Fighting fire with fire doesn't generally work.

 

[Asguard]

to be fair you will hardly ever find the word "rape" at all, in fact im not sure but i dont actually think its in the crimes act. The correct term i belive is "sexual assult" or "indecent assult" (which of course begs the question what is DECENT assult?)

however i should check that

 

[John99]

Kudos to you Australians for not mixing the term 'rape' with unlawful sex .

And what is the difference? Everyone knows, or should know, what statutory means.

Statutory \Stat"u*to*ry\, a. Enacted by statute; depending on statute for its authority; as, a statutory provision.

 

[John99]

to be fair you will hardly ever find the word "rape" at all, in fact im not sure but i dont actually think its in the crimes act. The correct term i belive is "sexual assult" or "indecent assult" (which of course begs the question what is DECENT assult?)

however i should check that

I think a big mistake is to emphasize that rape is a violent crime (more specifically a crime of violence) when most often it is a sex crime that can be violent...or specifically lead to violence as a direct or indirect result of the initial crime.

But first it is a sex crime or iow's deviant behavior. This is where statutory and non-statutory comes into play as well.

 

[Asguard]

the problem with the word "statutory" is that in the commonwealth context (ie Australia, canada, NZ, UK ect) it has a specific meaning which may not aplie to the US (i dont know). That is that its something inacted by statute, ie an act of parliment. The comparision is to "common law" which is inacted by judges.

Yes the age of concent is made by statute in every juristiction (from memory) but so are the rape laws and a whole heep of other laws (the whole of the crimes act for example)

 

[takandjive]

If affirmative action discriminates against any group of people, it's discrimination; saying that others were discriminated against first is kind of like a kid saying 'he started it!'. Fighting fire with fire doesn't generally work.

AA isn't about discrimination against white boys. It's about making sure someone's application gets read because of prejudice. I'm entering male-dominated field that's VERY conservative. I've been told I shouldn't be in it because I'm a woman and so have other women. I worry about my resume getting read. It's a bad feeling. I've been lucky to meet good people, but yes, I honestly feel I would have been a victim of discrimination had it not been in place.

Now, where I understand your distaste is when we delve into quotas. I don't want to be anyone's token, nor do I need it.

 

[John99]

Asguard: the problem with the word "statutory" is that in the commonwealth context (ie Australia, canada, NZ, UK ect) it has a specific meaning which may not aplie to the US (i dont know). That is that its something inacted by statute, ie an act of parliment. The comparision is to "common law" which is inacted by judges.

Yes the age of concent is made by statute in every juristiction (from memory) but so are the rape laws and a whole heep of other laws (the whole of the crimes act for example)

That is true that terminology is different. The problem most seem to be having is the age. Some will say one age and someone else will say another and some will just want to bust everyones balls and not agree with any age.

 

[John99]

I honestly feel I would have been a victim of discrimination had it not been in place.

and who has not? i dont see discrimination limited to skin color or gender, it depends on the individual and circumstances.

 

[takandjive]

and who has not? i dont see discrimination limited to skin color or gender, it depends on the individual.

Of course not.

However, I don't think anyone ever told you because of something plainly apparent you were born with, like a conjoined twin or Asian eyes or a vagina, that you should choose another career.

I'm not trying to sound like a femi-nazi or a liberal crybaby, but will you consider how embittering that is? And I still like white boys.

 

[Asguard]

takandjive im sorry to say but your view is to simplistic. Lets look at a few examples

Firstly there used to be (i dont know if it remaines because my parents are no longer there) a policy in the public service that if 2 people going for a job had similar qualifications in that that would automatically take the women. Now lets say that hypothetically this was still in place and that it applied to the ambulance service (an area where i have an ovious interest). This policy would say that when i finish my degree, and i have a large HECS debt to the goverment (something like 30-60 THOUSAND) which will mean i have to pay a larger tax burden until its paid off, that because im male rather than female i shouldnt get a job in favor of a women who was applying against me EVEN IF im a slightly better choice. Fair?

not really concidering the anti discrimination act is quite specific that gender cant be taken into acount.


Next example, there are alot of scholorships avialable to women to study in area's like Science where the gender balance is in favor of men. Personally i think this is a good move. However even though the goverment has identifided teaching, nursing ect as area's where they WANT a greater percentage of MEN in the workforce there are NO scholorships that I know off designed to encorage men into these area's. Fair? HELL NO

Next, mens health

Prostate cancer kills more men than are killed by breast cancer every year and FAR more than are killed by gynocological cancers yet the amount of funding surplied to treat prostate cancer is FAR lower and the goverment recently went even further to set up a center specifically to help with the treatment of gynocological cancers when that money could have been well and truly better spent to resurching and surporting victoms of prostate cancer.

Another example, the risk of death AT EVERY STAGE of the life span for men is FAR higher than for women yet there is vertually zero expenditure on mens health compared to fortunes spent on womens health. On this there was a "mens health day" yesterday which was so poorly advertised i only found out about it was in one small passing news artical (about 10 seconds worth) the day it was held. Nothing at all leading up to it

Next, the women's housing board which was set up (i think) just after the last federal elections FIRST RECOMENDATION, vertually as soon as it was set up was that an equivlant "men's housing board" be set up and yet NOTHING has been spent on this recomendation.

On domestic violence, the amount of money which was spent on the "violence against women" campain was discusting when compared to the fact that changing ONE WORD would have made it compleatly gender neutral. Insted a campaine was launched which had the effect of almost suggesting that domestic violence and sexual assult against men is compleatly ok. Concidering that men are FAR less likly to report these abuses is this really the message we should be sending?

I have no problem with encoraging gender equality yet thats not whats happerning and especially in health all the focus is on women even though the focus needs to be the exact oposite.