From the desk of Rex Mortar:
I’m Hank Mortar, and I’m a University-educated redneck. What is rape, actually? There are many opinions, and the laws are vague. In many instances the man and woman have totally different versions of events.
The psychopathic, serial rapist plans an attack on a woman. Because the penalty for rape is disproportionate to the physical damage done, he usually murders the victim too. If a man kidnaps and assaults a woman he’s probably looking at 10 years behind bars. If he sexually assaults the woman, he’s looking at 25 years. The number-one motive for murder of women is to prevent eye-witness testimony to a rape!
Rape in which a stranger ambushes a woman is the tiniest fraction of total reported rapes. It must be dealt with severely, because women need to feel safe. But if a woman is raped by a stranger, her chances of being murdered are greatly increased simply because rape is dealt with so severely.
Maybe we can learn from history. In ancient Rome there was no statutory law prohibiting rape. A husband or father could sue the rapist and recover monetary compensation for damages, but men really weren’t interested in forcing strangers to have sex, because the resulting children would belong exclusively to the mother.
In any case, violent crime at that time was not a matter for the courts but families. Relatives of the injured exacted justice on the offenders. And wealth was key. The wealthy in ancient Rome acquired so much money that they owned whole nation states and privately employed entire armies. Antony, of Antony and Cleopatra fame, employed over 100 soldiers as his personal body-guards!
So, no one messed around with the wealthy or their family members. If a middle-class maiden was deprived of her virtue it was most common that the offender be compelled to marry her. Later, in England, rape was punishable by castration. But if the victim agreed to marry the man the sentence was not carried out. There were no incidents of such a sentence being imposed and executed.
Throughout history women took it upon themselves to dress modestly, avoid drunkenness, avoid living alone, and to avoid privacy with males they aren’t related to. We’ve seen a sudden spike in the incidence of rape. This is due to the expanding definition of rape.
If we stop to think for one second, if a guy forces a girl to have sex, but she knows the guy, going through a trial as the main witness is not worth the satisfaction, especially when one considers the stigma attached to rape victims. No guy wants to marry a girl who was raped. Her life is severely compromised! If she chalks it up to experience, does not allow herself in a compromised position again, and uses common sense, she’ll be much better off in the long run than if she reports it to police.
The exception is rape by a psychopathic stranger who endangers the community at large. Such people must be stopped because they terrorize and/or kill.
So, the guy is convicted! So what? It doesn’t change anything! If the guy didn’t mean to harm the girl, just got carried away in the passion of the moment, she will experience guilt for the rest of her life! When the guy is released there isn’t even the slightest chance he’d want anything to do with the girl, so she gets to live with the knowledge that the man she had sex with—something that brings to a woman the expectation of emotional attachment—now wouldn’t touch her with a ten-meter cattle prod!
If there is some question as to whether a woman is a rape victim, the court can remove all doubt! Once it’s made part of the public record, the woman is a rape victim for life! What future guy wants to be inside a girl who is an official rape victim in the public record?
Girls once realized the dilemma intuitively. Due to human nature—that the male can be enticed to a mating response by the woman—the victim will always be put on trial, and will always be blamed by society. The offender might also be blamed, but so many people have become registered sex offenders for the most trivial offenses, that the term no longer carries any weight.
If an eighteen-year-old man had sex with a seventeen-year-old girl, because they were in love and wanted to be married, and so the guy became a registered sex offender because the girl was underage, who gives a rat’s ass? Based purely on that, the guy is in no way dangerous to anyone.
If a guy puts the back of his hand against a woman’s buttock, that’s permissible. But if he puts the palm of his hand in the same place, he qualifies for registered sex offender! If he puts the palm of his hand on a 400-pound woman’s buttock, he’s not a candidate for registered sex offender; only if the owner of the buttock has an attractive one!
In any case, the woman should take it as a compliment, because the guy wouldn’t do it unless he found the woman attractive. Should women be offended that men find them attractive?