"In the past, some of these same posters have even argued that forced sexual intercourse is acceptable--as long as she was drunk, as long as she went somewhere she wasn't supposed to, as long as it 'didn't really hurt her', etc."

This is quite an accusation you are making. I certainly hope you are not referring to me, as I have never advocated anything like that here, or anywere else. There is a link next to my name that says "read Aaron Bonn's other letters" if anyone wants to peruse what I have or haven't advocated here at Salon.

"In other words--men here arguing for their right to leer (hey, staring ain't illegal!), grope, and rape, etc. etc."

I guess I am arguing for the right for men (and women, for that matter) to leer. As you said, staring ain't illegal. However, I have never argued for the right of men to grope or rape. In fact, in this very thread, I have argued the contrary.

"If someone insists, as the posters have, that the woman should have to do this or that or move here or move there or say this or that before she gets their approval for going to the police about feeling threatened, then I have to feel that said posters believe women shouldn't go to the police with those concerns until the harrassment is ratcheted up to a level that is unacceptable to them--

which means that some levels of harrassment ARE acceptable."

First of all, lets take gender out of this entirely. What I adovcated I would apply to men and women alike.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I never set out any requirements that people must meet before they are allowed to go to the police. What I have set out is requirements that the case must meet before police should act on it, and those requirements include ACTUAL threats, not just FEELING threatened. Police should only act on objective facts, not on subjective perceptions. The simple fact that you FEEL threatened does not mean that you have been threatened. I have also indicated on this thread that there are other actions, short of arrest and incarceration, that police may take to increase a general sense of security, such as issuing restraining orders, placing officers on the train, opening a file and documenting things, etc.

Contrary to your claims, I never said that men have the right to harass women in public, or that a certain level of harassment was acceptable. All I said - all I ever said here - is that proof of harassment must be measured in objective facts, and not merely in subjective perceptions, and by any measurement according to that yardstick, a mere wordless stare does not qualify as harassment.

With all due respect, for purposes of this discussion, I do have my facts straight. I was arguing based on the same set of facts that everyone else here had. And for the purposes of this discussion, that was enough.

I beg to differ with you with regard to the presumption of innocence. It applies to the whole judicial branch. Police are there to gather evidence. Attorneys are there to make the case. Courts are there to judge the case. However, all three must presume innocence until they see otherwise.

I also beg to differ with your contention that I somehow "lost the argument" with regard to the possibility of staring being non-malicious. At the very least, you have not won it. People do stare at people absent mindedly or ignorantly, with no intention of violence. This case appears to be just such a case.

... if the hydrolysis doesn't, in fact, work off your generator as advertised?

How about a Plug In Hydra 4000, even if it does work as advertised?

All the self righteous outrage on this thread is killing me. She was a "whore." She was a "slut." She was a "streetwalker." She was "ugly." She was "tasteless." She "had no class." She "had no self esteem."

The way I see it, she was an adult, who chose to excercise her freedom as an adult to wear a revealing outfit. That's it. End of story.

As for all of you who are up in arms over the fact that she argued with the authorities at the dance, and didn't gracefully accept her own exile, I ask you: wouldn't you? We can reasonably presume that she spent a lot of money on her tickets, and probably on the dress as well. We can also reasonably assume that the prom was a big event for her, as it is for most high school students, and she was probably looking forward to it. We can also reasonably presume that being unexpectedly turned away at the door was quite embarassing.

I ask again: wouldn't you argue? Wouldn't you try, perhaps vigorously, to make your case? Or would you quietly accept your rejection?

...that she IS an adult.

The story Salon links to doesn't actually specify her age, but it does refer to her as a Madison High School senior. At this point in their senior year, most high school students are, in fact, adults.

You're not entirely right about Roe vs. Wade. The woman's right to have an abortion was based on the right to privacy established under Griswold vs. Connecticut, which first established a constitutional right to privacy based on substantive due process. Griswold - which dealt with laws prohibiting birth control - posited that such a right existed, and that decisions concerning family planning were covered by that right. The issue Roe vs. Wade put before the court was at what point does a person's right to privacy concerning family planning decisions conflict with a state's right to protect unborn fetal life. The court ruled that independent viability of the fetus was that dividing line.