|
|
|
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/170937.html
"Everybody thinks that if you go into the sexual history of alleged victims,
it is just to embarrass them, but the reason is that her state of mind is
the issue in the case," said defense attorney Roy Black, who successfully
defended William Kennedy-Smith against rape charges in 1991.
"You've got to show something that bears upon her state of mind on the date
in question," he said. "If her sexual history has no bearing on her consent,
then it should be excluded."
Susan Howley, director of public policy and victim services at the National
Center for Victims of Crime, said the bigger problem evident in the Bryant
case is the "continued public misunderstanding of the frequency and impact
of acquaintance rape."
"There's still a public reluctance to believe that a person can be raped by
someone they know or someone they're on a date with," Howley said. "A lot of
people believe at worst there was a miscommunication between the two people,
not that the woman was raped."
Miller, whose organization runs the national sex abuse hot line, said
reporting of rape has been increasing in recent years. Currently, estimates
suggest less than half, or about 40 percent of rape victims, report their
attacks, but that is up from about 20 percent a decade ago, Miller said.
But she said rape counselors are concerned that the Bryant case will set
back efforts to make victims feel that if they report their rapes, their
attackers will be brought to justice.
"Victims have to believe the system is encouraging them to come forward, to
go to the hospital and to prosecute their offenders," she said.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> reported in message
news:chh10k$1oc@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/170937.html
[...]
"Victims have to believe the system is
encouraging them to come forward,
to go to the hospital and to prosecute
their offenders," she [Miller] said.
Feminist true believers like Miller don't
want to acknowledge the truth: The "system"
exerts SO MUCH encouragement that
non-victims come forward with accusations
too. False ones. Sheesh. Feminism must
cause brain damage, else Miller would
'get it' -- to use a bit of 1990s feminist
lingo. (Heh heh)
One must ask why feminists and other
misandrist coddlers of women are soooo
quick to conclude that a woman who cries
"rape!" and makes accusations is truly a 'victim'.
But questioning their own dogma is not
a virtue among feminists.
In [US] criminal law, the person _claiming_ to be
the victim is _always_ legally disbelieved and the
evidence always cross-examined until the person
being accused is proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_.
Ahh, but if one publicly proclaims an accuser of "rape!"
a victim and gets the public to swallow that, one gets
to the next step of the goal of the feminists movement
to do away with trials altogether and just lock any
man up on any woman's say-so alone.
Also, anyone with eyes wide open soon notices
that feminists sure do have a fetish for pretending
'concern' about "rape!"
Unless feminists are saying that a woman's
vagina is more important than a woman's head,
rape must be acknowledged as something more than
violence toward a body part in order to give it
its special treatment.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth Of Male Power_,
chapter 14, "The Politics of Rape" p333,
(mass market edition).
No one will be surprised to see responses
to this post that substitute snipping and sneering
in the places adults would use rational discourse.
After all, the true believers in the feminist cause
don't value rationality and all that other stuff
they call "patriarchal" and "male logic".
--
All arguments within feminism are ultimately ad hoc: one uses
whatever arguments one can muster to prove what it is desired to
prove at the moment (victimization, discrimination, oppression,
persecution, whatever). There is no requirement that the argument
one uses today be consistent with the ones used yesterday....
The feminist need not worry that anyone will object that today's
argument is inconsistent with yesterday's: anyone who might
do so would be branded an "enemy of women"...
Excerpted from "Feminism, the Noble Lie" by Robert Sheaffer.
http://www.debunker.com/texts/noblelie.html
|
| |
| |
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/170937.html
"There's still a public reluctance to believe that a person can be raped
by
someone they know or someone they're on a date with," Howley said. "A lot
of
people believe at worst there was a miscommunication between the two
people,
not that the woman was raped."
Advocates for 'rape accusers' are blinded by their own self interests, truly
knowing that the vast majority of accusations are false.
These advocates and other so called 'experts' claim that rape is a crime of
violence and control. If this is the case, how many guys jump out of a bush
and rape a beat a woman? Since the frequency is so low, they have to expand
the pool of rapists to include normal everyday guys.
The fact is, a 'real' rapist will conceal his crime. He covers his face and
takes extraordinary measures to hide his identity, after all, he faces
severe punishment if caught. This explains why in many cases, the true
victim is found dead, or they simply vanish.
|
| |
| |
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/170937.html
The title should be changed to "Bryant Case could chill
FALSE rape reports".
|
| |
| |
in article chh10k$1oc@dispatch.concentric.net, s_knight8 at
s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com wrote on 9/5/04 11:44 PM:
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/170937.html
"Everybody thinks that if you go into the sexual history of alleged victims,
it is just to embarrass them, but the reason is that her state of mind is
the issue in the case," said defense attorney Roy Black, who successfully
defended William Kennedy-Smith against rape charges in 1991.
"You've got to show something that bears upon her state of mind on the date
in question," he said. "If her sexual history has no bearing on her consent,
then it should be excluded."
Susan Howley, director of public policy and victim services at the National
Center for Victims of Crime, said the bigger problem evident in the Bryant
case is the "continued public misunderstanding of the frequency and impact
of acquaintance rape."
"There's still a public reluctance to believe that a person can be raped by
someone they know or someone they're on a date with," Howley said. "A lot of
people believe at worst there was a miscommunication between the two people,
not that the woman was raped."
Miller, whose organization runs the national sex abuse hot line, said
reporting of rape has been increasing in recent years. Currently, estimates
suggest less than half, or about 40 percent of rape victims, report their
attacks, but that is up from about 20 percent a decade ago, Miller said.
But she said rape counselors are concerned that the Bryant case will set
back efforts to make victims feel that if they report their rapes, their
attackers will be brought to justice.
"Victims have to believe the system is encouraging them to come forward, to
go to the hospital and to prosecute their offenders," she said.
Rule 1: Don't have sex again before you get to the hospital and get that
guy's semen all over you corrupting the best evidence in the case.
Rule 2: If you break rule 1, tell the SANE nurse what you did so she won't
be surprised as hell a month later and change her whole opinion of you.
If rape victims follow these rules there should be fewer problems.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
in article Wi%_c.12245$54.172283@typhoon.sonic.net, Michael Snyder at
msnyder@redhat.com wrote on 9/6/04 8:24 AM:
The title should be changed to "Bryant Case could chill
FALSE rape reports".
Amen. I hope Kobe will become the "poster child" for the falsely accused.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:chh10k$1oc@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/170937.html
"Everybody thinks that if you go into the sexual history of alleged victims,
it is just to embarrass them, but the reason is that her state of mind is
the issue in the case," said defense attorney Roy Black, who successfully
defended William Kennedy-Smith against rape charges in 1991.
"You've got to show something that bears upon her state of mind on the date
in question," he said. "If her sexual history has no bearing on her consent,
then it should be excluded."
Susan Howley, director of public policy and victim services at the National
Center for Victims of Crime, said the bigger problem evident in the Bryant
case is the "continued public misunderstanding of the frequency and impact
of acquaintance rape."
This is not an "acquantance rape". I think "groupie rape" or "starf*cker rape"
would be more appropriate of a term.
Alex
|
| |
| |
That's what Kobe should do go on TV and say don't let these ho's accuse you
of rape. Then he should start a fund for the falsely accused.
Its scary how easy it is to get accused. This gal was a bimbo and a half
lying through her teeth and Kobe with all his money still almost went to
jail. Any normal guy would have his balls hung.
The title should be changed to "Bryant Case could chill
FALSE rape reports".
|
| |
| |
Yes I agree but look at how justice was again perverted by the extortion
queen and her slimebag attorneys:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I
recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way
I did," said Bryant, a married father of one who still faces a civil lawsuit
filed by the woman that seeks unspecified damages.
In court, one of the woman's lawyers, John Clune, said Bryant's apology
factored into her decision to drop out of the case.
"Kobe was facing life in prison for a crime he did not commit," Bryant
attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon told ESPN's Jim Gray. "The accuser
insisted on that statement as the price for his freedom. The statement
doesn't change the facts: Kobe is innocent and now he is free."
Full story:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1872740
That's what Kobe should do go on TV and say don't let these ho's accuse
you of rape. Then he should start a fund for the falsely accused.
Its scary how easy it is to get accused. This gal was a bimbo and a half
lying through her teeth and Kobe with all his money still almost went to
jail. Any normal guy would have his balls hung.
|
| |
| |
Yes I agree but look at how justice was again perverted by the extortion
queen and her slimebag attorneys:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I
recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same
way I did," said Bryant, a married father of one who still faces a civil
lawsuit filed by the woman that seeks unspecified damages.
In court, one of the woman's lawyers, John Clune, said Bryant's apology
factored into her decision to drop out of the case.
"Kobe was facing life in prison for a crime he did not commit," Bryant
attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon told ESPN's Jim Gray. "The accuser
insisted on that statement as the price for his freedom. The statement
doesn't change the facts: Kobe is innocent and now he is free."
Full story:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1872740
Oh, and I forgot to mention that now that she has secured an apology by
threatening him with prison, she and her attorneys better have their money
sacks ready after the court orders the Kobe shakedown.
This injustice system is in dire need of reform.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:45:44 -0700, "aluckyguess" <aluckyguess@yahoo.com>
That's what Kobe should do go on TV and say don't let these ho's accuse you
of rape. Then he should start a fund for the falsely accused.
How do you determine who is falsely accused and who is rightfully
accused?
Its scary how easy it is to get accused. This gal was a bimbo and a half
lying through her teeth and Kobe with all his money still almost went to
jail. Any normal guy would have his balls hung.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:45:44 -0700, "aluckyguess" <aluckyguess@yahoo.com>
How do you determine who is falsely accused and who is rightfully
accused?
Circumstance is a mighty fine indicator. If Kobe had jumped out of a bush
or beaten her, then I'd call it rape.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:44:32 GMT, "FernDog" <FernDog@WhoKnows.com>
Circumstance is a mighty fine indicator.
Isn't that why we have courts?
If Kobe had jumped out of a bush
or beaten her, then I'd call it rape.
Are all rape cases as cut and dried as that?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:45:44 -0700, "aluckyguess" <aluckyguess@yahoo.com>
How do you determine who is falsely accused and who is rightfully
accused?
Well, for one thing, if you're acquitted you were falsely accused.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:44:32 GMT, "FernDog" <FernDog@WhoKnows.com>
Isn't that why we have courts?
So you agree with me -- if you're acquitted by the court, you were falsely
accused.
Are all rape cases as cut and dried as that?
No -- that's why we have courts.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:33:49 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
So you agree with me -- if you're acquitted by the court, you were falsely
accused.
No, I don't agree with you on that point. It simply means they weren't
found guilty and as such, our legal system views them as not guilty.
Do you believe OJ is innocent?
Knowingly accusing someone falsely should be a crime, but there are laws
in place to deal with that situation. And simply because someone is
acquitted in a case like that doesn't mean they weren't falsely
accusing.
You and FemDog are a couple of ignorant fools.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:32:51 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
How do you determine who is falsely accused and who is rightfully
accused?
Well, for one thing, if you're acquitted you were falsely accused.
Was OJ falsely accused?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:33:49 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
It would be nice to see you react to a mere rape accusation. Then you might
learn to appreciate those of us good citizens who demand compelling
evidence.
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday...because there are so
many morons like Mike Helm born every day.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:21:59 GMT, "FernDog" <FernDog@WhoKnows.com>
It would be nice to see you react to a mere rape accusation. Then you might
learn to appreciate those of us good citizens who demand compelling
evidence.
It would be an interesting to see how you would react had you just been
raped.
I would say your daughter, but she isn't on here spewing a lot of
bull#@($ about it.
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday...because there are so
many morons like Mike Helm born every day.
Nice one, #@&@
.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
In article <Ds6%c.12315$54.173706@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Well, for one thing, if you're acquitted you were falsely accused.
So OJ Simpson was falsely accused?
|
| |
| |
"There's still a public reluctance to believe that a person can be raped
by
someone they know or someone they're on a date with," Howley said. "A lot
of
people believe at worst there was a miscommunication between the two
people,
not that the woman was raped."
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:21:59 GMT, "FernDog" <FernDog@WhoKnows.com>
It would be an interesting to see how you would react had you just been
raped.
I would like to assure you that there would be plenty of compelling evidence
to base an informed decision upon.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:33:49 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
No, I don't agree with you on that point. It simply means they weren't
found guilty and as such, our legal system views them as not guilty.
Do you believe OJ is innocent?
Isn't that why we have courts?
Knowingly accusing someone falsely should be a crime, but there are laws
in place to deal with that situation.
There are laws in place to deal with domestic violence, too.
Always have been. And yet we have this VAWA thing, on the
theory that they haven't been enforced.
Maybe we need a FAAMA -- an act of congress outlawing
false accusations against men.
|
| |
| |
by
of
people,
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
As well (and unsaid), there is a public reluctance to believe that a
person can be falsely accused of rape by someone they know or
someone they're on a date with. Howley will never acknowledge
that, though...
|
| |
| |
in article 67opj0hrl1isg8g3ki1a0e5qv2g1gdibiu@4ax.com, Mike Z. Helm at
mhelm@not.known wrote on 9/6/04 3:13 PM:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:44:32 GMT, "FernDog" <FernDog@WhoKnows.com>
Isn't that why we have courts?
Are all rape cases as cut and dried as that?
if they were, there'd likely not be this much controversy; truth is so
difficult to determine in even the 'simplest' trials these days, b/c we now
find that not only is morality relative, but so too now is truth.
put the right spin on a 'truth' and it can appear to be a lie; spin a lie
and it looks like the truth.
How it is that more people aren't becoming insane in considering the
implications, is likely b/c those who aren't insane, have adapted to living
within these conditions relative truth presents.
Of course, that latter group would include myself, and the majority of
respondents within this group- but even so, sometimes I feel my personal
hold on the thread of sanity becomes a slippery filament indeed.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
in article d40qj0h9m6otjqaa3tch4gglk01ci38m87@4ax.com, Mike Z. Helm at
mhelm@not.known wrote on 9/6/04 5:28 PM:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:32:51 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
How do you determine who is falsely accused and who is rightfully
accused?
Was OJ falsely accused?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
b/c he was discharged of this crime, if one believes OJ was in fact guilty,
they cannot assert this position as fact, but one of belief (otherwise
potentially liable for defamation by way of libel, as posting to the
internet is considered the same as 'publishing')
Therefore,"I BELIEVE OJ is Guilty/innocent....b/c" is an accepted sentence,
whereas "OJ IS guilty/innocent" is not (after all, he was FOUND not to be).
|
| |
| |
in article BD62DE1E.F773%catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca, catchmerevisited at
catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca wrote on 9/7/04 3:39 AM:
in article 67opj0hrl1isg8g3ki1a0e5qv2g1gdibiu@4ax.com, Mike Z. Helm at
mhelm@not.known wrote on 9/6/04 3:13 PM:
if they were, there'd likely not be this much controversy; truth is so
difficult to determine in even the 'simplest' trials these days, b/c we now
find that not only is morality relative, but so too now is truth. put the
right spin on a 'truth' and it can appear to be a lie; spin a lie and it looks
like the truth. How it is that more people aren't becoming insane in
considering the implications, is likely b/c those who aren't insane, have
adapted to living within these conditions relative truth presents. Of course,
that latter group would include myself, and the majority of respondents within
this group- but even so, sometimes I feel my personal hold on the thread of
sanity becomes a slippery filament indeed.
Rape shouldn't be, and hasn't been, that hard to prove. When DNA testing
became useable rape prosecutions should have become a slam dunk. The main
problem used to be arresting the perpetrator. The evidence was signs of
forced penetration and DNA that matched the suspect and/or samples from
other victims. It was taken for granted that the presence of a stranger's
DNA in a woman's vagina was evidence of unwanted intrusion.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
in article BD632CF9.1A70%georgee@pe.net, George Evans at georgee@pe.net
wrote on 9/7/04 9:16 AM:
in article BD62DE1E.F773%catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca, catchmerevisited at
catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca wrote on 9/7/04 3:39 AM:
Rape shouldn't be, and hasn't been, that hard to prove. When DNA testing
became useable rape prosecutions should have become a slam dunk. The main
problem used to be arresting the perpetrator. The evidence was signs of
forced penetration and DNA that matched the suspect and/or samples from
other victims. It was taken for granted that the presence of a stranger's
DNA in a woman's vagina was evidence of unwanted intrusion.
George Evans
again, a spin on the truth.
yes, dna was collected- the very minor tears present were succesfully argued
for reasonable doubt, that they may have been the normal result from
consensual sex, and not necesarily from Kobe as evinced from the DNA of two
other males.
now we have another problem: does the collection of DNA evidence involving
persons who weren't charged, constitute a violation of their right to
Privacy?
I think in Canadian Law a Charter Challenge would find that would be the
case, and rule this dna inadmissable. I also think it likely that the US
would have a similiar law and ruling mechanism to deal with this issue.
For those arguing for a greater conviction rate, be thankful at least that
this case wasn't a precedent setter for determining inadmissability of dna
and invalidating the manner in which such evidence is currently collected.
For those who believe in higher Ideals such as Rights of Privacy and
Presumption of Innocence, I am sorry that your day in Court is delayed....
|
| |
| |
in article BD634B90.F81E%catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca, catchmerevisited at
catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca wrote on 9/7/04 11:26 AM:
in article BD632CF9.1A70%georgee@pe.net, George Evans at georgee@pe.net
wrote on 9/7/04 9:16 AM:
<snip>
Rape shouldn't be, and hasn't been, that hard to prove. When DNA testing
became useable rape prosecutions should have become a slam dunk. The main
problem used to be arresting the perpetrator. The evidence was signs of
forced penetration and DNA that matched the suspect and/or samples from
other victims. It was taken for granted that the presence of a stranger's
DNA in a woman's vagina was evidence of unwanted intrusion.
again, a spin on the truth. yes, dna was collected- the very minor tears
present were succesfully argued for reasonable doubt, that they may have been
the normal result from consensual sex, and not necesarily from Kobe as evinced
from the DNA of two other males.
Well, I was talking about rape prosecution in the past, but let's see how
the case against Kobe didn't compare. The injury indeed was *minor*.
Traditionally a rape victim would not be sexually excited and therefore dry,
and thus would show *severe* injuries consistent with forced penetration.
Not in this case. There seems to have been adequate lubrication.
now we have another problem: does the collection of DNA evidence involving
persons who weren't charged, constitute a violation of their right to
Privacy?
I think in Canadian Law a Charter Challenge would find that would be the
case, and rule this dna inadmissable. I also think it likely that the US
would have a similiar law and ruling mechanism to deal with this issue.
For those arguing for a greater conviction rate, be thankful at least that
this case wasn't a precedent setter for determining inadmissability of dna
and invalidating the manner in which such evidence is currently collected.
For those who believe in higher Ideals such as Rights of Privacy and
Presumption of Innocence, I am sorry that your day in Court is delayed....
Traditionally you would have a victim that was with no more than one regular
partner. So there would be only one persons DNA to rule out. If the victim's
involvement with the person was legitimate that person would have no reason
to oppose giving a DNA sample. But in this case Katelyn has not identified
Mr. X for some reason, probably because her case requires that he not exist,
which just happens to ruin her credibility.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
Well, I was talking about rape prosecution in the past, but let's see how
the case against Kobe didn't compare. The injury indeed was *minor*.
Traditionally a rape victim would not be sexually excited and therefore
dry,
and thus would show *severe* injuries consistent with forced penetration.
Not in this case. There seems to have been adequate lubrication.
Common sense would suggest what you say, but it turns out you are wrong.
Some rape victims do lubricate, just some sort of involuntary reaction. In
evolutionary terms, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that such a
reaction helps to propagate the genes.
In any event, it happens, and it turns out it's a great source of shame to
many victims - it doesn't make sense to them, either.
Google up some facts, you may find that some "Traditional" ideas about rape
turn out to be complete horse#@($.
Bo Raxo
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
dry,
Common sense would suggest what you say, but it turns out you are wrong.
Some rape victims do lubricate, just some sort of involuntary reaction. In
evolutionary terms, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that such a
reaction helps to propagate the genes.
In any event, it happens, and it turns out it's a great source of shame to
many victims - it doesn't make sense to them, either.
Google up some facts, you may find that some "Traditional" ideas about rape
turn out to be complete horse#@($.
As well as some more recent ideas, such as "rape is an act of
violence, not of sex". Violence doesn't usually make the victim's
vagina lubricate.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
As well as some more recent ideas, such as "rape is an act of
violence, not of sex". Violence doesn't usually make the victim's
vagina lubricate.
The "act of violence" notion speaks to what it is in social terms -
certainly for many types of rapists it is a sexual fetish with violent
overtones, not the other way around. Don't mix clinical models of behavior
with social models that judge it. The act of violence viewpoint is also a
handy shorthand for the useful idea that it isn't the victim's fault if they
flirted or wore a short dress, because rape is not a continuation of a
spectrum along which lies other (consensual) sexual activities.
The use of the term for statutory and some other encounters is rather
confusing, really "sexual assault" might be a better label for
statutory/adolescent/no force, and guard/inmate/no force situations.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
As well as some more recent ideas, such as "rape is an act of
violence, not of sex". Violence doesn't usually make the victim's
vagina lubricate.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for all of you but there is always some
lubrication in a snatch and its possible to have sex with just that. No
additional lubrication needed.
|
| |
| |
Bo Raxo wrote:
The "act of violence" notion speaks to what it is in social terms -
certainly for many types of rapists it is a sexual fetish with violent
overtones, not the other way around.
That's more or less what I meant when I said "it's a slogan,
not a statement of scientific fact."
Don't mix clinical models of behavior
with social models that judge it.
But people DO assume that the statement is a 'clinical'
(or scientific) statement of fact.
The act of violence viewpoint is also a
handy shorthand for the useful idea that it isn't the victim's fault if they
flirted or wore a short dress, because rape is not a continuation of a
spectrum along which lies other (consensual) sexual activities.
"Other consensual activities" doesn't make sense, obviously,
as rape is not a consensual activity. But it DOES lie at or
near one end of a continuum of sexual behaviors. It exists
in the animal world, and in some species, is at least one of
the common reproductive strategies.
The use of the term for statutory and some other encount | | |
