For giving another perspective on this thread. What you have accomplished in terms of your own healing from horrible trauma is inspiring.

Now, last anonymous:

"It's clear where we are heading with this: NO ONE OF ANY AGE will be allowed to have a legal sexual relationship with ANYONE that a committee of "experts" decides is "in a position of authority". Am I the only one that can see a problem with this?"

I think you've waxed hyperbolic.

But authority figures sexually entangled with their subordinates is a thorny issue. Look at the World Bank scandal from a few months ago as exhibit A (and that couple had been dating long before he became her boss). Aside from the (huge) potential for abuse and coersion, these relationships create an atmosphere of resentment and mistrust among the other subordinates who know who the boss is screwing. Should it always be illegal? No. But I think it's almost always immoral or, at best, irresponsible.

But, this thread isn't really about all work-dating scenarios. I'ts about pre-adult males being abused by adult females and how we should respond as a society.

Don't be so disingenuous.

No one on the planet is exactly equal to anyone else.

But there are power relationships that should not be abused by sexual/romantic entanglement.

Doctors (MDs and Psych docs) should not screw their patients.

Military commanders should not screw their troops.

Clergymen should not screw their congregants.

Teachers should not screw their students.

Adults should not screw non-adults.

These relationships require the subordinate to place the care of their body, mind, soul, psyche and life in the hands of their superior. To ensure the health and safety of the sub, a functioning relationship requires trust on the part on the sub and professional detachment on the side of the super. Both are comprimised when the relationship becomes romantic/sexual. It is too easy for the super to take advantage of the sub, to manipulate them into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise. Even the most ewll-meaning soul will be profoundly challenged to keep the apropriate distance to make correct professional decisions regarding the sub.

When the subordinate is a pre-adult, the scales become even more out of balance. The sub is less equipped to see the forest for the trees, and the super has even greater (perceived and real) power, in the eyes of the sub.

is a male humor phenomenon.

Women do not, as a rule, find that scenario to be a real knee-slapper.

My proof?

How many "chick-flicks" or "chick-lit" books feature scenes where someone kicks a guy in the balls in a moment of levity? It's not a popular motif of genres that cater to women.

How many films, tv shows, books and comedy sketches aimed at males aged 14-40 feature nut-kicking scenes or stories?

Ah.

(My personal favorite? Hiomer Simpson trying to judge indie films for Springfield's film festival. Barney Gumbal submitted a beautiful Felini-esque art piece, but 'Football in the Groin' had a football in the groin! Doh!)

I suspect more men than women find woman-on-man abuse depictions "cute" or "funny" for 2 reasons: 1. the schadenfreude moment of "Better you than me, pal" and 2. the confidence to laugh at something one knows will likely never affect them. Plenty of women find humor in disrespecting men (Deborah Baronne as the patron saint of Wives of Clueless Husbands), but few women find humor in anybody hitting anyone.

I am not saying that women aren't violent towards men or that women are "more peaceful" than men.

I am saying that a joke about kicking guys in the balls is much more a guy kind of joke than a woman kind of joke.

Why is it that on Halloween "all" the women dress like sluts, and "all" the men dress in drag (like sluts)?

Traditionally, Halloween costumes were supposed to ward off the evil spirit who want to possess a living body. What message does slutting-up send to the nether world denizens?

"You do not need to be a strong or highly trained woman to grab a man by the head and plunge your thumbs into his eyes."

Here are some theories that have been tosed about on this thread:

1. women are just as (or nearly so) violent as men, and are just as likely to beat their male partners as men are likely to beat their wives/gfs.

2. Even men who are taller/heavier/stronger then women can be (and are) easily hurt by women.

3. It is "very easy" to poke out a someone's eyeball, even if you are a small woman and your opponent is a large man.

So, how many men are treated annually for attempted eyeball poking? How many for successful eyeball poking? The loss of (or damage to) an eye is not an injury easily covered up the way a slap to the face or even a foot to the crotch can be after the initial contact. Shouldn't there be thousands?