I'll say it again...rape is rape is rape. It doesn't matter who is raped, it's a violent sexual act whether it's perpetrated against a man or woman. Both are going to be scarred - emotionally, physically, and sexually. So I disagree with your assessment that a hetero male that is raped by a man is going to suffer more than a female that is raped by a man. The suffering may be different but not more or less.

1. You're assuming she's had sex before. Many women's first sexual experience (if you can call it that) is rape. I don't have statistics, but I'm sure it's a pretty representative number. So if that's the case, then she has no idea that sex would otherwise be pleasurable.

2. You're assuming she's enjoyed sex before. I think that's pretty self explanatory. Believe it or not, there are some women who have never had a pleasurable sexual experience.

Why do you think that a woman being raped by a man doesn't find that repugnant? I will tell you this, there's not much that I fear - but I am terrified of being raped. It's the most dehumanizing form of violence a man can do to a woman (or another man for that matter). And it's not about sex, really - it's about power, violent power over the victim - using a "weapon" that will cause a lot of psychological damage. Many women never recover from it enough to have a normal sexual attitude or relationship.

---

Now, granted, a 17-year sentence seems rather excessive for oral sex. And I'd need to know more about the case in question before I'd want to pronounce a sentence here.

Rape is rape is rape - it it a violent act perpetrated on another person. In the case where a child/minor is raped, then the sentence should be tougher. You're implying that forcing a minor to perform oral sex isn't as heinous a form of rape than if it were sodomy. All forced sexual acts are against the law, and in the case of minors, the book should be thrown at their rapists.

17 years seems like a short sentence to me, no matter what the case details.

Agreed, James! This isn't license for NAMBLA to rejoice.

But Lawrence isn't based on the equal protection clause, but on the due process clause and the "right of privacy."

And, while I think consensual adult sodomy should be permissible, I'd argue that nonconsensual homosexual conduct is worse than its heterosexual counterpart.

When the court said "in light of" Lawrence, they were telling the lower court to read between the lines.

Likewise, I'd argue against the claim that privacy and due process were the sole bases for the ruling the court made, in light of this from Kennedy's opinion:

Far from possessing "ancient roots," ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850. The Nation's laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.

Sounds to me like Kennedy's saying any laws proscribing homosexual acts are, at best, suspect, and the Supreme Court is not going to permit homosexual and heterosexual conduct to be regarded differently under the law--even when criminal sexual conduct is involved. The de facto result of Lawrence may well be that those who engage in homosexual conduct are now granted equal protection under the law. Maybe not in reality, but that's how the court is signaling its future interpretation will come down.

It was fortuitous for Matthew Limon that his case was heard today and not, say, Wednesday.

Kennedy's passage you cite was in context of evaluating rational basis, I think.