Gentlemen:

A warning before you start, this is going to be a long one.

We're living in clown world, but humans are rational creatures. For the longest time, I've tried to understand how these two statements can coexist when they seem so opposed. I can't understand everything, but I think I understand the reason family courts and laws affecting the interactions between men and women are so skewed from reality. It all comes down to four principals. These four principals are not written down, they're not official laws, but they still affect the laws and attitudes that we in the U.S. (and most of the Western World) maintain. They are wrong; adopted in a bygone age, but they still hold sway. These principals are...

Principal #1: The sexual act between a man and a woman is inherently a male action. It is always something that the man does. This isn't limited to intercourse; dating, flirting, long term relationships, all are something that the man did. The woman is always assumed to be essentially a passenger in a car; she can criticize and suggest, but she has no control over what's happening. As such, the man is held responsible for the act and any consequences of the action.

Principal #2: It is impossible for a woman to initiate a sexual act with a man, or even inform a man that she is welcome to the idea of him initiating a sexual act. Again, this is not limited to intercourse; the woman is incapable of establishing a dating relationship, a marriage, or even flirting with a man. Even if a woman approaches a man and says “I want to have sex with you,” it isn't her attempting to initiate a sexual encounter, or letting the man know that she is approving of him attempting to do so.

Principal #3: No woman desires sex, nor can any woman understand that men desire sex. The only reason that any woman ever complies with a man's wishes to have sex is either for procreation or to encourage a man to establish and maintain a relationship. While women can understand that men are favorably influenced by certain physical attributes and behaviors, they don't really understand the concept of arousal.

Principal #4: Every man wants to have sex with every woman he sees, at any time and under any condition. It doesn't matter if the woman in question is physically or verbally abusive, unattractive, odorous or has a history of violence. It doesn't matter if the man is elderly, too young to engage in the act, tired or ill, every man inherently wants to have sex with every woman. This also means that any interaction between a man and a woman is inherently sexual in nature.

Like I said, these principals are BS, but they exist. Take a look at some recent cases in which laws or public reactions were out of hand, then apply these principals and the outcome starts to make sense, even if they aren't right.

Example one: The Harvey Weinstein case. Let's go for the big one right up front. There's no defending his actions; the man was a pig. However, what he did wasn't rape. If I understand the laws correctly, connecting what he wanted from them to breaks in the movie industry meets the definition of harassment. But I don't see anyone in power pointing this out. Nobody in power seems to be asking why the women weren't avoiding him; why they went along with it for so long. You see, none of these women could grasp that he desired them. Calling them into his hotel room, alone, to discuss a part? They couldn't know that he intended to have a sexual interaction, because they can't grasp that...even if they've had augmentation surgery, wear flattering fashions and work out to keep fit and attractive. In most cases, it wasn't until another woman came forward that they realized that he gained some sort of sexual gratification due to the acts.

Example two: Lisa Climans and Michael Latner. For those who need a little reminder, Latner is the wealthy Canadian businessman who now has to pay spousal support to Climans, even though they never married, never cohabited and never had any children. To most of us, this seems an idiotic finding; how can there be a divorce settlement if there was never a marriage, even a common law marriage? Well, you have to first apply the first principal; because this relationship was something that Latner did, it was up to him to understand all of the implications. We may ask why she didn't move on if she didn't want to marry him, but that's blaming the victim; he created and maintained the relationship, so he has to bear the responsibility when it ended. She was merely along for the ride and because no other man attempted to establish a relationship with her, she found herself stuck in this one.

Example three: The numerous incidents of female teachers having sex with underage students, and receiving very light (if any) punishment. This should be open and shut; statutory rape laws exist so that experienced adults do not manipulate naive adolescents into sexual situations and encounters...yet it seems to break down when it's an adult woman having sex with an adolescent boy, even if the woman has a position of authority over the teen. Well, all of the principals come into play. First, even though the teens are boys, they are still initiating the encounters...it's impossible for the women to do so. The second principal means that various texts and emails that the women sent the boys don't count...they can't be accepted as her attempting to create a sexual encounter. Third, the women didn't really want to have sex, they realized that the boys did and this was a favor to them. Finally, since the boys got to have sex, they enjoyed it. They should have just kept their mouths shut and everything would have been fine. The way society and the legal system see these cases, the women didn't do anything, they simply failed to stop an illegal act from occurring. It's sort of like driving under the influence; it's illegal to do so, but it isn't illegal to fail to prevent someone you know from doing so.

Example four: Nick Olivas. Again, a refresher. When he was 14, Olivas “had sex” with a 20 year old woman. He did not know that she became pregnant until eight years later, when she sued him for child support, back child support, medical bills and interest on the aforementioned. The State found in her favor, seized assets and garnished his wages. Most of us on the subreddit were outraged. Once again, it's the first principal in play, it was his responsibility, even at 14, to know that the woman could become pregnant and check and make sure that she didn't...or take care of the kid since she did. While in this case he wasn't responsible for the sex taking place, he was still responsible for the results of the sexual encounter.

There are plenty more out there; mattress girl and Armaan Premjee to name a couple, where there was clearly a consensual sexual encounter, the woman later claimed sexual misconduct and the courts and/or schools agreed with her, with no evidence. What do you think? Do you think that these outdated and false principals are influencing the enforcement of our laws and how society views the sexual act, or am I way off on this?