Thanks again Lizzie. I disagree but at least it was put in a reasonable manner that even I could understand:-) What I will add is why I disagree and would be interested in your views on that.

You say because without the first behaviour, the second may never have happened. I am sure you are aware that all crimes can carry a charge for anyone who did not actualy commit the crime but did something to assist. It is called aiding and abbeting. So, in our scenario, the man committed the crime but without the girl's actions he would not have done it. She has aided and abbeted in that crime as, without her actions, there would not have been a crime in the first place. So, do we punish her as well?

Better still, should we make it a crime to encourage people to commit other crimes? Incitement to racial hatred is already a crime. Why don't we make incitement to rape another? That way we are preventing crime rather than picking up the pieces. Only slight problem is, who will determine what that incitement actualy is? The girl out on the town flashing 'em for the lads? The Pussycat Dolls goading lads into wishing their girlfriends were 'hot like me'? Maddy Prior for asking us to 'Ruffle up the feathers in the Cuckoos nest'? Where will it stop?

Once you are on the slippery slope of justifying ANY rape I am afraid there will be no stopping. Nothing to do with sexism. Nothing to do with believing women over men or vice versa. Just, quite simply, rape should NEVER be mitigated by circumstance. Either the woman has consented, in which case there is no crime, or she has not, in which case it is rape.

That is why I disagree. Oh - BTW - you are completely wrong when you say You possibly may feel that they shouldn't even be warned never to do that again, because it is their 'right' to do exactly that, over and over, should they want. You could not be further from the truth but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point in question.

Cheers

DeG