Rather like child porn, theoretically it could be anyone under the age of consent. But paedophilia is the sexual attraction to the pre-pubescent (there’s a different term for post-pubescent). However, “paedo ring” and “paedophile” will be used for any child porn case. That’s problematic not because it’s less wrong for post- than pre- (and I can delineate exactly why this would be wrong, other than “it’s against the law” which can change just by changing the law, and it covers “coercion” as just as wrong too, even if it’s by a power disparity rather than overt force) but because when the rules for sentencing come out it’s the “fucking a four year old” that people are imagining and designing the law for, but it will be applied to two teenagers sexting each other. The law is so badly worded in part BECAUSE nobody wants the one abusing the four year old to get away on a technicality. But the lw doesn’t add “only for pre-pubescent” and definitely not “four year olds”.

What makes university worse is that asshole adults who don’t want to actually parent or “think” that abstinence is the only allowed method until after marriage send their children off without knowing WHAT the whole sex thing is and they’re going to get it wrong.

Either by feeling they are being raped while the other thinks their being encouraged, because the expectations are different, or because they’re still held back by a system that refuses to let adolescents grow up so keep them adolescent until they finally manage to leave home, at which point they’re still “raging against the machine” and doing dumb shit just to define themselves as an adult.

If you teach your children about sex, or let them be taught about it at a young age, they can handle the oddness of the concept easier, and there’ll be less of a culture shock when they’re stuck around a moderately homogenous group of young adults. If you let them grow up earlier and accept they belong to themselves, you’re just responsible for them, not their owner, they’ll define themselves before they leave home and won’t still be stuck as “old angsty teen” when they’re 20.

The latter is made harder when schools are treating them like children more and more, and doubly so when the universities themselves keep treating their students like they’re still little kids that need orders.

So I see three problems, all fixable outside university:

1) Lack of sex ed makes young adults uncertain what is supposed to happen, what is expected of them and from them. And when that gets wrong in a sexual situation, you get more rape. Because one or the other party doesn’t know how to deal with this.

2) Constriction to childish roles means the university goers will not know who they are and will experiment, risking more frequent dangerous situations.

3) Women need to say no. And men have to accept it. Hey, dude, if she gets scared by the consequences or changes her mind and you have to walk off blue-balled, DO SO. Sure, call her names and swear never to bother again because you’re pissed off (and you’re justified with it), but that DOES NOT mean you’re entitled to any form of assault. Hate her if you want, but that’s as far as you go.

But repressing sex drives never works. See RCC priesthood. And demonising sex or women or even men doesn’t work, it merely makes it easier to justify being a demon.

“I’m a sinful man, therefore every time I DON’T rape is proof I’m trying to be better!”

“I’m a woman and I’m supposed to submit to what the man says” until regret and distance make them realise what REALLY happened.

“Women are the cause of the downfall of mankind, they’re all evil!” leads to Jack the Ripper.

Since you choose not to believe statistics that show there is a problem, simply because you have a problem with statistics in general, why should anyone believe you are trying to discuss things in good faith?

False.”

Wrong. If you don’t send your sons there then they will be women only education centers, dumbass.

Unless you think there are sons that have no parents, which is logically impossible since they would not be sons, having no parents ever, being sprung from nothing fully formed and ready ti go to college…

“You would have to explicitly turn the college into an all-girls college”

No you wouldn’t, you’d just have to not send sons there.

False. There would then be one less man there.
You would have to explicitly turn the college into an all-girls college, which only the administrators could do, not the parents.

Or start teaching sex ed to all of them at a young age and therefore they won’t be learning all that shit when they first get away fro the controlling parents and getting it wrong at a higher rate.

Your stance, “mike” is no different than “Tell men no to t rape”, just pointed to a different sex.

Yea it is. However, assuming the problem is not overblown, then it seems silly for any parent to send their daughter to college. 20%+ chance of being raped(is that annual or over four years)? Who volunteers for something like this?

For people like betula the reason is simple: women are inferior and their education doesn’t matter, since all they are good for is reproduction. For people like him rights only exist for men.

I’m not sure what mikeN is getting at. He has some odd views, but I’m not sure he’s crazy enough to really believe the way to address a problem is by restricting the rights of victims. I have a feeling that his stance is more a statement that the problem is overblown, or really doesn’t exist, than anything else.

Actually, it’s one of Anita’s problematic screeds is the fitting in anything to the “It’s a damsel in distress.Lame!”, most recently and illogically with the latest Legend of Zelda.

But on Mrs Macbeth, she was a major protagonist and was the one Mr Macbeth turned to when he thought “I like the king. Surely it’s a bad idea to try to kill him. Maybe I should give up?”, and she told him to stop pu55ying about and get on with it.

Then went batshit.

If anyone (apart from the completely innocent king) is a victim, it’s Macbeth. He got completely trolled and set up.

Fun fact: Tolkien said that the image of the wood coming to Dunsinane fired his imagination, which was dashed when it was as mundane a thing as “sticking a stick in your hat”, so he wrote the March of the Ents.

And for “Banana man”, if the banana was intelligently designed by god because it fits in your hand, what about the “big banana” men keep in their trousers? I never recalled Jesus saying anything against masturbation, either. that was OT, and actually a retribution not against onanism but of Onan’s disobedience for honouring his sister-in-law and his brother’s memory by not banging his dead brothers’ wife..

If you care to look into it, you’d see that it is hard to exaggerate how far backward parts of the GOP base are looking.

BTW, it IS ridiculous to imply that the party labels in the 1860s have anything at all to do with the modern parties.