why does Broadsheet post half the non-news it does--I don't know. I guess this was supposed to be kind of a feel-good piece, in a weird sort of way.

And yes, there will be rape as long as there are people. But that is true of all categories of crime.

We can change some things, such as the beliefs and entrenched attitudes (she was dressed a certain way so she was asking for it and that's why I did it). By prosecuting aggressively, we can show that rape is to be taken seriously. And that's about all.

And then there would be less rape, and that's the point.

I have often taken the unpopular or non-politically correct view. But, as always, those without answers are reduced to questioning the poster's motivation for participating (perhaps they should ask the same question of themselves).

Wow, this time it happened really fast.

First I'm shouted down for not toeing the liberal line, and now I'm castigated for being a zombie of the same liberals.

Ever occur to you that some people think for themselves?

and that was the problem, from what I could understand.

I also guess the point of the post was that, although South Africa may have very progressive laws, they are insufficiently enforced, which means that in practice they still have a ways to go where women's rights are concerned.

I guess having two rapists in the room attending the same event was too much for S.A.'s feminists, but one at a time was okay? I didn't really get the point of that either.

I think the problem with the post is that it is badly written and confusing; at least I found it so.

it might make a difference if Tyson was there at the government's invite or was some kind of guest of the state. However, from the article I couldn't tell if this was the case.

But yeah, it may be misleading as you say.

Your experience was informative, BUT....according to the literature available on the subject, if your sexual offenders had access to sex through other means (and some of them may have), they would still offend.

This isn't just a matter of my opinion vs. yours or my anecdotes vs. yours or anybody else's.

This is something you can learn in any class of criminal psychology. Sex crimes have been studied for years in some effort to understand sexual predators and see if they can be rehabilitated or what "works" with them. However, as you said yourself they remain dangerous and their risk of reoffending is very, very high.

If pent up sexual need were playing any significant role, pilot programs employing chemical castrations or even estrogen injections would have been effective. But they weren't, because the real motivator, the underlying psychology of anger and feeling helpless, was not being addressed.

Like you said, they are huge losers for whatever reason, and this feeling of inferiority leads them to rape.

Personally, my hair stands on end at the suggestion that if sex offenders could only afford prostitutes, they wouldn't attack other women. I truly think this is part of the reason prostitution is tacitly encouraged by so many people. They think if the hookers are there, these guys won't seek out and attack "better" women.

Well, that has nothing to do with it. The only thing that happens is that the hookers get raped by the sex predators. (Fun question! If he leaves money, is it rape? This question has come up in court, you know)

The law regarding sexual offenses is set up a certain way, and there is a reason for it. There are all kinds of categories of sexual offender. Undoubtedly, a stepdad who molests his daughter after carefully building up trust is a different "animal" than a drunken frat guy climbing on a woman in a back room, and this again is different from a psycho hiding in an alley.

But none of these guys are doing it for the sex. Lawmakers have realized this, now if only other people would.

You say the attacks would manifest themselves differently if sex were not an issue. Why should they? We are animals and have at our disposal all of the animal means of demonstrating dominance and challenge. To say that the attack would be different if the only desire were to hurt....who says so?

Melthough, go ahead and call me a troll, you will get a great conversation that way. That works well as an opener.

Rape is defined legally as "an assault involving the sexual organs"...sort of takes all the sexiness out of it, doesn't it?

Rape as a result of lust is an idea that the Catholic Church has hung onto through thick and thin.

Hmmmmm.

Don't jump on me. I'm just thinking.