On paper, equal sentencing seems to be logical. But even in formal logic the argument doesn’t make sense.

Men can rape women.

Women can rape men.

All rape is equal.

That’s the same as saying:

Men can punch women.

Women can punch men.

All punches are equal.

That just doesn't make sense, IMO. Men are stronger than women. Therefore, the threat of domination with violence is greater with man-on-woman rape than woman-on-man rape. Now, does the level of violence in rape cases matter? Of course it does. Who are more violent, men or women? With that, who is more prone to use physical violence? If you say women are just as violent as men, well, the stats in the reality based world don’t coincide with yours. So why are men more likely to use violence than women? Why does a dog lick his own dick? Because he is physically capable of doing so. That’s what it boils down to---strength through chemical differences. If women were physically capable of beating the shit out of men---they would. Women do indeed beat small children---but still not as often as men do---because physical aggression is higher on a guy’s tool selection than it is in a woman’s arsenal for survival.

I played football in high school when I was 13---a 36-year-old woman would’ve been killed on that field. That’s why I don’t believe woman should be firemen. They’re not mechanically the best tool for the job. I mean, you could pound a nail with a lawn mower, but it’s still the wrong tool for the job.

Anyway, when I see women playing in the NFL, NBA, and NHL, I’ll reconsider women being firemen and all rape as being equal.