Because if you are forced to sleep with your teacher for a good grade, that's not rape. You consented to the act itself. So, it depends on what this coercion is exactly like. Maybe the wording was overreaching.

But it's true that that is not the main point of this woman's argument, which is quite reprehensible, and it's hard to resist the temptation to compare this to the racial segregation in the military until Truman, and to the ongiong "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the main justification for which now seems to me that soldiers are homophobic, and so we don't want to anger them, nor endager the gay troops.

Well, what do you expect from a woman who also blames feminism and our "permissive culture" for the emergence of "purity balls."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2007/03/23/extreme_fathers_of_the_bride

This woman seems to misunderstand the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions, i.e. no one forced you to rape that sodlier, no one forced you to have a purity ball. Except of course when it comes to women having sex -- then they and their fetuses are responsible for everything bad.

Kathleen Parker's Op-Ed ponders how to remedy the problem of sexual assault perpetrated against U.S. soldiers by U.S. soldiers by concluding that the only solution is to separate the sexes. In settling on that ill-conceived and discriminatory response, she overlooks a fair and apparently effective solution that already exists.

According the the various articles I've read, the kinds of abuse described in Salon and the NYT is much, much less likely to occur when military commanders from the top down make it clear that it won't be tolerated. When officers and sergeants communicate that their troops (men and women) are, in fact, comrades, it seems that a culture of respect--one largely free of sexual assault--is the result.

Another aspect of this problem that Parker doesn't bother to consider is that military recruits apparently include a proportionately large number of people (again, men and women) who were abused in their youth. According to the NYT, these abused men often exhibit excessive aggression while the abused women often have an impaired ability to protect themselves from would-be aggressors. So, mix these two groups together and place them in a dangerous, chaotic situation and you have an environment uniquely suited to abuse. Again, though, the focus should be on helping both groups, ideally before ANY abuse is allowed to occur. Parker's solution, however, would just abandon both groups to suffer from their psychic wounds.

I don't know why it surprises me when a line of reasoning like this appears in newspapers. (I know no one can afford proofreaders anymore, but a logic-checker on staff, that would be handy.) But I guess I can still be shocked - in fact, the first thing I did was click the link to check the date - nope, not an April Fool spoof.

I also noticed this from the original editorial:

How much is enough to thwart the nature of the beast?

This is not to say that men at war are expected to behave badly, but there are possible explanations for some of these questionable liaisons that bear closer scrutiny.

I'm not sure who to feel more insulted for - my gender, which has been denigrated as unequal; or the entire male half of the species, who I guess are somewhere on the "barely trained beast" part of the civilization continuum. (Or wait, does that mean if we girls ever get to be "equal," we'll also be unable to control our urges?)

Where standard discipline was via Sodomy and the Lash. Separation of the sexes won't change depraved brutal behavior.

Let's see, wouldn't that be the rapist? I'm sure anyone suffering from any crime in a war zone has responsibility by being in that area (less safe than a nice safe house in the suburbs, doncha know?), but really, muggers are responsible for mugging (and are the people who need to be restrained), murderers for murderings, drunk driving for driving while drunk, and rapists for raping.

Yes, women would be free from rape if women would just stay out of areas where men might feel sexually aggressive toward them and act on that feeling. Conversely, women would be free from rape if any man who might conceivably be sexually aggressive toward women could be made to stay out of areas where they might be confronted by those maddening rape-inducing women. Neither solution would work in a free society. So let's focus on the rapists: educate, punish, report, whatever. I've no expertise in criminal behavior, but one stops crime by stopping the criminals, not the victims.

"Because if you are forced to sleep with your teacher for a good grade, that's not rape. You consented to the act itself. So, it depends on what this coercion is exactly like. Maybe the wording was overreaching."

Bullshit. You could go back to all kinds of first ideas if this logic holds true. A man cannot rape his wife because she consented to marry the guy. A student cannot be raped by her professor over a grade because she chose the school or the class. A woman cannot be raped because she "asked for it" by wearing sexy clothing. no, No, NO!

If the woman (or man) did not want sexual contact from someone (male or female), it is rape. Period. Whether it is condoned by society or not reported doesn't make it reasonable conduct. If someone holds ultimate control over my life, like a superior officer, and I don't want the sexual contact, then it is rape. The fact that I agreed to give control over my life to someone is irrelevant. The military has control over my life, but I did not consent to give them control over me sexually.

"Because if you are forced to sleep with your teacher for a good grade, that's not rape. You consented to the act itself. So, it depends on what this coercion is exactly like. Maybe the wording was overreaching."

Bullshit. You could go back to all kinds of first ideas if this logic holds true. A man cannot rape his wife because she consented to marry the guy. A student cannot be raped by her professor over a grade because she chose the school or the class. A woman cannot be raped because she "asked for it" by wearing sexy clothing. no, No, NO!

You're absolutely right. A woman has to consent to each individual act. Simply giving consent when getting married is not enough. But, it's not rape if you consented to the act. If your professor said, "look if you want an A, you have to sleep with me," and you choose to sleep with him, that's not rape. You consented, you didn't have to sleep with him. If you say, "okay, I'll sleep with you" and then while you're doing it, you change your mind and say "stop" and he doesn't, then it's rape.

The legal definition of forcible is "if the male uses or threatens to use force likely to cause serious bodily harm to the female, or to a third person." See "Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd Ed." by Joshua Dressler (2001). Simply threatening to give a bad grade, or not promote, is not rape.

Promising marriage in exchange for sex is not rape, even paying a prostitute in fake currency is not considered rape. Sorry. I'm not a fan of rape, but I'm also not a fan of expanding its definition such that any "not wanting" is sufficient for rape. A prostitue may not want to have sex with her clients, but she does it for the money. Is that rape too? I don't think it should be.