(Eric) Swanson submits: "I don't think statutory rape should exist [as a law]. If you want to bring a fifteen- or a thirteen year old's desire or ability or right to consent into the legal system, you've got to be able to get the whole story. And that may be un-gettable."

Eric, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Anyone--especially an adult male--who advocates sex with children is a sick fuck and deserves everything horrible that could possibly happen to him. This is not the kind of cute phrase you drop into a discussion to perk things up. This is not some Foucaultian bullshit where 'truth' is a debatable. This is pedophilia, and you are advocating it.

Shame on Salon for giving it space, especially since the editor makes no effort to take him to task for his remarks.

This is simply despicable behavior.

then we better train all women in the art of self defense. So listen up ladies if you don't want to have sex, you need to be prepared to use violence. Kick him, bite him, poke his eyes, squeeze his balls really hard if you, then he can't say hey, I didn't think her no really meant no.

I can't believe these people are saying that women scream rape when the man was lousy in bed, he misunderstood her signals so he's not really at fault, so men mistake crying during sex as a good sign??? A 13yr old girl loves sex with older men or a 15 yr old, hey we know she ain't responsible enough to drive a car, but no adult male could have manipulated her or forced her could he?

I can't believe actual women are suggesting that women lie about rape because they felt bad they had sex!

The women I know that have been raped, never came forward because of assholes like these people who don't really believe in rape unless a gun or knife is being used, or the person isn't a stranger!

I hope some man anally rapes one of those bitches and says sorry hon, I didn't really think you meant no anal sex really meant no anal sex. Or that the guy is raped and the guy says, hey I thought you were gay and into being a bottom, sorry, my mistake. I know that's wrong and hateful to wish that onto someone, but I've rarely felt so disgusted with fellow human beings before.

"In some ways, date rape can be defined as a man who is an inefficient, hurried or sloppy seducer."<\i>

There's nothing I can even add here. There can be gray area in this debate, but these people seem to think it's mostly gray area.

Rape has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with the desire to dominate, subjugate, control, and humiliate. Rape is about violence, psychological and/or physical. And I am not talking about psychopaths.

When a man is confronted with a "no", he'll often take it as a personal attack on his own worth, revert to his base instincts, and take what he considers his due.

No sane woman fantasizes about rape, or "asks for it". Rape, be it date-rape, or assault by a stranger, is the worse possible violation that a woman can experience.

So enough already with this so-called conversation about "rape" by a bunch of navel-gazing Neanderthals.

I wonder what kind of howles we'd have here if I sat around discussing my experience raping a woman and how it's just so much hotter that way.

But the other way around? That is just part of a woman exploring her boundaries. Unless, of course, the man turns out to be a lousy lay. In which case ...

"RAPE!!! Oh, officer, it was just so awful, he could hardly get it up... I mean, no wait... let me explain...."

P.S. This is exactly how sexually self-indulgent hypocritical feminist ho bags turn middle america into a conservative Christian wasteland. You go, gyrrls... You are Karl Rove's dream babes. With friends like you the average American woman need not worry about men.

Feminists? According to whose definition?

The last time I looked, "feminists" were horrified by rape.

I don't want to defend what the panelists apparently advocated. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that they did not mean that women "cry rape" when they weren't. The point was, clearly, that a simple bright line rule such as "no means no" does not make sense given how people actually seduce/be seduced. At any rate, it is important to remember that the law (at least in the jurisdiction where I practice) does not say "no means no." The law says, "Would a reasonable person have known that the other person did not consent."

So if you are making out on a couch, and the guy tries to put his hand up the skirt of the woman and she says no, and he stops, they continue making out and he tries it again and she pushes him away and cries out "stop it," a reasonable person might assume that, while she wants to kiss, she doesn't want to have sex. If the man forces himself on the woman, then he could face a rape charge and subsequent conviction.

If, however, after she says no and they go back to making out, he tries again to put his hand up her skirt and she does not complain and then he has sex with her, maybe a reasonable person would not have known that she did not consent.

I have thought a lot about rape law, because it is so weird. No other comparable felony is based on a "reasonableness" standard. But what other options are there? Strict liabiliy? Strict liability is generally for crimes such as driving without a license, not a crime like rape which carries harsh penalties and social stigma -- and the penalty and stigma are well deserved. Certainly we can't go back to the old rape laws, based on things like "was she a virgin" and "did she fight back valiantly during the attack."