"Inside youth prisons, scores of female guards violated boys"

If your point is that men in our society are getting the short end of the stick, trying to make an argument or point out that it's not 1% but 2% of all rapes are committed by females on males probably isn't going to help much.

What percentage of those young minor males who were statutorially "raped" actually feel that they were violated and raped? What percentage consented and were fully in on it? I'm betting most thought it was awesome.

Let's not become like the Feminists. Can we please try to focus on substantive and worthy points and arguments instead of trying to flood the intellectual marketplace with garbage?

All good points, Marc.

More and more we're finding that as people begin to actually look at this hidden and harmful criminal activity, instead of just brushing it off as impossible or irrelevant; that there's much more there than they would have expected.

It's so sad that it's taken this long for even a small number of people to realize that this is even a possibility.

The way in which boys and girls are affected in later life will vary. Some will be scarred, others not, but just because some may not be harmed, this is not a good reason for not criminalising the behaviour.

Whilst girls won't boast about sex with an older man as a conquest, many of them are genuinely upset when the man is arrested, because they genuinely regard him as their boyfriend.

What percentage of those young minor females who were statutorially "raped" actually feel that they were violated and raped? What percentage consented and were fully in on it? I'm betting most thought it was awesome.

The reality of the whole thing is that only the tiniest percentage of "rapes" on minor females is non-consensual. Most "violated" young women thought of their "rapist" as their boyfriend. It does not become "rape" until over protective parents find out and freak. That's why it's called STATUTORY rape and not just rape.

Good for the goose good for the gander and all that.

If you want to take the position that most young males are not harmed by sex then you have to also take the position that most young females are likewise unharmed. It's society that creates the harm in statutory cases not the acts.

"Can we please try to focus on substantive and worthy points and arguments instead of trying to flood the intellectual marketplace with garbage?"

I disagree. Alot of the girls thought it was "awesome" too, but they become harmed later. Some of the boys feel violated immediately afterward and some do not, but according to experts, the boys are harmed later in life as much as the girls are. Of course, the main point is that feminists who use this to bash men are ignoring the female side of it just as they do with DV and other issues, and I totally disagree that it's "garbage" to point that out and put it back in their face. And I'll continue to do so. Thanks for your thoughts though.

"Some will be scarred, others not, but just because some may not be harmed, this is not a good reason for not criminalising the behaviour."

This sounds like feminist thinking to me. Sounds like the As long as the guilty pay it's fine to punish some innocents as well.

So if this is a highly personal thing and the harm is not guaranteed, but rather depends on a number of factors such as personalities of the people involved, how the people close to the people involved react, and societal preconceptions is it really the best thing to have one and only one blanket solution for everyone? Criminalization?

Don't get me wrong, I know that's is perhaps the hardest question of all to answer because the reality is that these situations are almost never clear cut.

It's still a consent issue. To borrow from another MRA topic, people argue all the time that circumcision doesn't harm the child. That doesn't take away from the fact that the child's body is modified for no reason and without any consent. Similarly here, a child may not be harmed by the experience, but they still aren't considered to be able to give true consent.

Also "harm" is rather subjective. If a girl is abused and starts sleeping around, society recognizes that as her being emotionally hurt by her abusive experiences. If a guy starts sleeping around, thanks to "common wisdom" about men, no one bats an eye at it, even if it's a problem in his life.

I think you are misunderstanding my comment. Having sex with minors must be criminalized, because it is impossible to predict whether, or the extent to which, a particular child will be scarred by the experience. The second point I was making was that the double standard that women having sex with boys is far less serious than the reverse is fallacious, because neither boys nor girls generally see it as abuse. The difference is that boys see it as a conquest, girls see it as a serious relationship. In both cases they are oblivious to the possible future harm.

"The difference is that boys see it as a conquest, girls see it as a serious relationship. In both cases they are oblivious to the possible future harm."

I have not seen any data to back that up and it sounds more like a stereotype that feminists and others like to spread as a way of justifying the female perps while demonizing the male perps. I'm sure many boys feel a relationship with the teachers they sleep with and many girls see it as a conquest too, like something to brag about to their peers especially if it's an attractive male teacher that other schoolgirls like. The extent to which they're oblivious to the possible future harms is probably not that much different between the sexes.

What I am saying is I do not necessarily agree that criminalization is the only solution.

You are saying since there is no way to predict whether harm will or won't occur then we must err on the side of caution and lock 'em all up.

This to me is a kin to "Shoot 'em all and let God sort it out"

It's a cop out. Literally, since your solution is letting cops deal with tough questions that you'd rather not have to sort out.

I'm not saying criminal charges should be taken completely off the table either though. I'm just saying that there should be more option besides just criminal charges because there are far more situations that would be better handled outside of the courts then there are situations that are well served within the court system.

I am completely aware of the potential harm of young people having sexual relations with either other young people or adults and I am not saying it's ok or encouraging it.

But I'm also well aware of the fact that no matter what anyone says about it, does about it, or wants done about it, it's going to happen.

I am also aware that much of the harm is not caused by the acts themselves but rather how the acts are viewed. The harm almost exclusively occurs after the acts. Not before or during. Let me remind you all again - 'cause I'm sure some people are going to get mad reading this - that I am not talking about forced violent rape. I am talking about young people doing what young people often do - stupid things.

In these kind of situations much of the harm is created by the way we all deal with them. We fail miserably at helping young people put these kinds of things in their proper context when they knowingly and willingly got involved in them. We thrust victimhood upon them instead of offering guidance and listening to their feelings.

Confusion comes from lack of understanding. I can't imagine anything more confusing to a young person who thought they knew what they were doing when people find out and set the wheels of 'justice' in motion.

Are these young people really being well served by the current system?

Or should there be more options on the table besides criminally charge the male or older person involved?

I'm also not saying these are easy questions or that I have the answers to them. I am just saying that there needs to be much more discussing and studying done on them to try and find out the answers.

Another nugget to chew on. In the USA, currently, sex offenders currently make up 25% of the prison population, drug offenders are 50% and all other crimes are the other 25% (sad that the lowest level offenders occupy so much of the resources of the prison system huh?). The number of sex offenders receiving prison sentences is projected to double by the end of this decade. Less the 5% of all convicted sex offenders employed any form of physical violence in the commission of their crimes. So almost none of them are the boogie man in the bushes or the shadows of the playground.

Where do you want to put all these people (98% male of course)? Is prison serving their needs? Is prison going to help them in any way at all?

Did complete criminalization help alcoholics during prohibition in the early part of the last century?

I'm not taking any position on the criminalization. If I sounded that way at some point then I misframed it. I am pointing out that whatever attacks they make on men with regard to rape is imbalanced and they're covering up female rapists just as they do female perpetrators of domestic violence. The debate over criminalization, to me, is a different thing altogether.

David A. DeLong
I have to agree with you Paragon. What you suggest is a more Humanistic view towards the Human condition, about time. But you will find that most People would rather use the old knee jerk reaction to subjects instead of actually "thinking" about the circumstances. One must consider People that are put in positions of trust by the community to have failed if they take advantage of the situation to have sex with someone in their charge period. To what extent they should be punished is another question.
I spent 3 years as a ward of the court in NY from 13, up to the age of 16. I can tell you that sexual predation was rampant, by both women, and men. I was at two different places, and they were both the same. How do I feel about those circumstances? I believe that the people that did those things should have been prosecuted. They were violating a basic trust of not only the children, but the state as well.
In the first one I was in the maitenence man was into young boys. He was fired for diddling a couple, but the home hired him back because they couldn't get anyone to do his job for the pay he received. The house mother of the building that I was in had boys service her by oral sex. The house mother and the maint. man were very good friends. This of course is different from the teenage young girls that prowl looking for conquests, of which they do.
So again I will have to agree that the circumstances should be what dictates the sentence.

Teacher/student, or boss/worker, or like this article is about prison guard/state ward and other job positions where people take advantage of the people beneath them is definitely a circumstance where I would say criminal charges should be pretty much automatic. That's an aggravating factor and situations like that tend to affect many more people then just those directly evolved because people almost inevitably know what's going on and it impacts their ability to perform their work. Prison guards and the like are in a particularly unique position and they should face charges because they have more power of their wards then the average supervisor does. The people under prison guards literally have diminished rights and therefore require additional protections.

I don't really approve of workplace sex in any situation, but I know it's common. Plus, it's definitely not always the person with he higher rank/position who is more at fault for it especially if that person is male. Women tend to avoid pursuing relationships with men who are 'equal' to them in a work place. Again, circumstances need to be taken into consideration case by case. It's never a good idea, but it might not be criminal.

Again, I don't have the answers as to exactly where to draw the line of what's criminal and what should not be criminal but is still not something to be praised or encouraged. It really should be something that is looked at case by case and until there are other options on the table besides criminalization it's really just in the 'needs to be very seriously studied and considered' category.

I think its important to know that its only when so many female teachers are coming into the limelight that people are starting to go "Well it doesn't really hurt those boys does it?"

MRAs want equality first - let the female pedophiles be given sentences equal to what their male counterparts are receiving, let the female jails become as inhuman as male jails, then we'll worry about justice. As it is, prison rape is smiled upon by society because only males are affected by it, not females. When females start to get affected, don't worry - society will take care of them, and then it will be our turn to say "Gender discrimination" if men are not included.

I wrote about the female teachers' sex obsession the other day, here. The post was about a man who thinks that female teachers are victims because the boys come on to them strongly and dominate the poor wikkle female teachers.
Here is an excerpt:

Make no mistake, NOW and SOW and all the other feminist headquarters are probably full of lawyers and judges busy thinking of get-out clauses, because the chivalry and the goodwill is going to run out sooner or later and then these women won't have the free pass they now do to commit sexual and physical abuse of children.
You know, I actually agree with some of the arguments, but you would never in a million years hear them apply these arguments to a man caught in a compromising situation with a 17 year old girl, so I'm not going to support any of this shit when a women-firster is saying it to drum up sympathy.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com