I'm not sure the Breitbart guy has this exactly right. Yes, the woman who regrets the sex may lie and claim it was rape, which is always wrong, but I'm not even talking about false allegations. I'm talking about true allegations that are treated as similar but are in fact different. I'm not a big fan of the term "sexual assault" because it's too broad. It has become the catch-all term for any unwanted sexual contact of any kind. It can mean anything from walking down the hall at work and touching a co-worker's *** on the outside of her clothes (and pretending it was an accident, of course) to throwing her on her desk, pulling down her pants, and raping her. By using the same term we're blurring those two things, and they're very different.
For example, consider the allegation against Franken or Bush 41. They touched an *** on the outside of the clothes. That makes them dirty old men, not monsters who are dangers to society. I think Franken shoving his tongue down Leann Tweeden's throat makes him worse. However, even that puts him in the "sick *******" category, not the monster category.
I think you cross that line when you start going inside the clothes or using your junk. If you force any part of your body into someone's shirt or his or her pants, you're a monster. If your junk comes out, you're a monster even if it stays outside the clothes. Those are truly dangerous people.
We shouldn't blur the distinctions. The dirty old man or the sick ******* should get charged with misdemeanor assault and get their wrists slapped. The monster should spend 20 years in the slammer. Big difference.
