Foxnews.com readers took issue with the California Supreme Court ruling that expanded the definition of rape, as reported in Wendy McElroy’s column this week.
Readers also responded strongly to Joanne Jacob’s column on school tolerance of bullying, Steve Milloy’s criticism of BP Oil’s supposed environment-friendly slogan, and to Eric Burns’ discussion of the arrogance of some media critics.
Here is a sample of this week’s mail.
In response to ifeminists:
Bernard Pilsner writes:
Now, who is to say when it was said? During sex or after? It does not seem to matter. A women can say she said it during sex, and that’s enough. Changing her mind in the middle is her thought, not his. She should have gotten up and left…not let the guy keep going. But she did. No argument was placed that she tried to leave, but simply said that she had to go home. Men have no chance. It is a women’s world and we just live in it.
For years men have been told "no" does not mean "yes" and deservedly so. Does this set the precedence for "yes" actually meaning "no" or does it translate into "maybe ... let me tell you after a few strokes?" Once anyone crosses a certain threshold of behavior, results are inevitable regardless of how an extreme liberal California (activist) court wants to categorize those results.
I feel bad for the young lady and I don't know all of the facts but it seems much of her situation was created by her own promiscuity. Her earlier consenting participation had something to do with creating and encouraging the environment and circumstance. If a person runs into a busy street without notice, does the poor unsuspecting driver who hits that person get charged with a crime? If not, does the driver get charged after the person claims that he or she changed their mind after finding themselves in the middle of the road?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Brian Dorsey writes:
While I agree that "I have to go home" is not enough to represent a withdrawal of consent, when I read the caselaw.findlaw.com document that you cited, I did not see their decision in the same light as you did. It seemed to me that the girl’s trying to push herself off the minor constituted the withdrawal of consent, with the statement "I have to go home" further highlighting the girl’s wishes. Also, it is stated that the minor continued for at least a minute and half after she began her attempts to push herself off him. Now as a man with my fair share of experience, I can assure you even the most dense of my kind will have understood her wishes…or at least inquired within 30 seconds or so, let alone a full minute and half later. Reading over the document you cited, I would have to agree with the court’s decision that the girl was raped by the minor.
Gus Owens writes:
Frankly, as an American male, I am angry as hell about this. It is one more cut from a movement that has gone from a quest for justice to a lust for power.
Mike Baker writes:
Once again, the case is made for abstinence from sex outside of marriage. This whole situation would have been avoided had those boys said, "No, I'm not going down the road". Rather than just defining when a no is a no, men should be taking the position of no ring, no fling. Marriage in this case works to protect men from unwarranted charges of rape and the life destroying consequences that can bring. Just another perspective to consider as we decide what directions our culture should be taking.
Lavonia Velasquez writes:
Why is it that this country can never achieve balance? Women can have an all women's gym, but men can not have an all-male gym. With racism, we over compensated to the point that people of minority can make jokes involving white people, but white people can’t make jokes involving minorities. Women can make jokes against men, but men can not make jokes against women. It seems we, as a people, feel that we must have revenge for past actions before we can have balance. I disagree.
In response to Big Bully’s Feelings by Joanne Jacobs:
I'm a freshman at a high school in western Pennsylvania. I have experienced bullying first hand, and the teachers don't do anything. For example, in gym class, students take whiffle balls and throw or hit them off of a racket (both items used in an improvised game called "Pickle Ball") at other students, and it hurts! When we talk to the teacher, he does next to nothing. Their behavior doesn't change. Administrators and teachers don't have the ability to punish students anymore, and it is becoming sad. There is next to no control over the worst students in the school. Something needs to be done, and I applaud your realization of this.
I remember some bullies, and I also remember them being deposed and ignored. I do not remember coddling them or worrying about their "feelings." Once again, the minority steps on the majority. Only by teaching a lesson was the bully stopped in my school, and only the same thing will stop them in others.
In response to Junk Science:
Gary Callihan writes:
What I find beyond belief is that BP and others are not addressing the most stable source of renewable energy known in the world today, which is Biomass fuel. Each year we burn up massive amounts of energy in our forest wildfires. Each year we, in America, are appalled at the devastating wildfires that are frequenting our forests. Yet not much is said about prevention of those and future wildfires.
The truth is that much of the world has been using BioEnergy for a half century successfully. Yet here in America we use none. Which special interests are to blame for this well kept "secret" in America? Why do we burn it instead of care for it and use it? It beats me, but I do know that politically we have chosen our path, and it defies logic. We are paying a huge price in environmental damage, human and wildlife lives, and money, which is taxpayer money as well as insurance company and citizens' personal money.
Nicholas C. Piskurich writes:
Since it seems that everything these days has political undertones (your article not excluded) I am sure that the effort to spend the companies money on advertising to improve its image could certainly be misconstrued. Please remember that it is the companies right to spend its hard earned money the way it likes. It is also wholly separate from BP’s real effort to reduce green house gas emissions making actual improvements, actual results.
David J. Halko writes:
Fossil fuel burning is bad for human health and contributes to allergies and increased health care costs. We know this. This should not be turned into a "religious" debate over a theoretical greenhouse effect. We also know that the planting of flowering trees and bushes also causes this.
Whenever we use "theory" to make laws which governs the income of American families, we need to be very cautious. The Federal government would be better off performing its constitutional duties governing which sections of the country can import/export live trees and bushes from which side of the country and world so American families with allergies have a place to migrate to. The southwest has been so contaminated with varied pollen creating plant life that people can no longer move there to escape deathly diseases like athsma and avoid a medicated life. If a fossil fuel company is trying to be more environmentally friendly, then why should it not tell others this is the case?
I knew there was some reason I didn't feel motivated to renew my BP credit card.
In response to Fox News Watch:
Michael Holt writes:
But the fact is they might very well, since some already have, fault McDonald’s for "forcing" hamburgers on its customers.