Sex with 16y vs. Rape stories ?

[Guest]

I know, Literotica doesn't allow stories with people under the age of 18, because of the Law.

However, at the same time, they have stories with the subject of rape.

Maybe they could lower the age limit down to 16. I mean, in many countries, it is legal to have sex at the age of 16. In the USA, you can drive a car at the age of 16. Also, many times before I heard that some teenagers have their first sex at the age of 12 or 13 ... Also, I know this one girl. She is 16, but her breasts are 36 DD. She likes to show her body, and she loves to draw attention from the people. Depending on the parents, some 16 year olds have tattoos and piercings.

And, I know many people become parents at a young age, because they don't know enough about sex (like this one girl: she thought that the couldn't become pregnant, because it was her first time .... but she got pregnant, and now she is a mother at the age of 16)

I don't ask for something like 12 year old kids. But I think 16 year old teenagers should be acceptable.

I know, some of you may say: it is against the law.

But think about it: Literotica also has rape stories. And rape is a crime. A crime that includes psychological, and most times also physical damage.

Also: I saw some rape stories where in the end, the victim starts to love the rape. I just saw a story, where a woman is raped in her own home and then when the rapist is gone, she hopes he will come back for more. Imagine: if some sick perverted reads a story like that, he may think that rape would be o.k.

Anyway, the reason why I write this is: I have some story (mainly incest) where the father teaches some things to his younger daugther. But it is hard to believe that an 18 year old still has to learn something when it comes to sex. They would be more realistic with 16 year old daughters.

 

[TheEarl]

I understand what you're trying to say and living in a country where 16 is the age of consent makes it a bit frustrating not to be able to go below 18 at times. I think you'll have to grin and bear it though as this is an American site.

Comparing it to rape is interesting as it is all down to a question of morals. What is acceptable as a fantasy. Many people would say non-consent fantasys are fine, but not under-age. Then there are people who say that its just a fantasy and as long as you don't transfer it into real life, then anything should go.

I have to take issue with this comment though:

"Imagine: if some sick perverted reads a story like that, he may think that rape would be o.k."

Entertainment doesn't make people do things. Anyone who rapes someone does it because they are a twisted or evil person, not because they read it in a story and think that its okay. God I hate peoples obsessions with blaming entertainment for the world's evils. There were murders and rapes before internet and television you know.

Sorry pet peeve.

The Earl

 

[KillerMuffin]

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Originally posted by Tiggs in the Story Ideas Forum

It concerns Laurel, Literotica, U.S. Law, and the future of stories here...

Posted by Laurel on 10-02-99:

Here's the scoop on the age question:
While sex with a minor is illegal, writing about it may not be. However, nearly every newspaper article I've read regarding adult web sites has to mention kiddie porn, like that's all adult web is about.

Sure, if we allowed underage stories on Literotica, and some overambitious cop somewhere decided to try to put us away for some imagined crime, I could take it to the Supreme Court and I would probably win - free speech and all that. However, do I really want to be put away for months in the meantime? Do I want to give thousands of dollars to some lawyer?

The answer, of course, is no. I'm a firm believer in free speech. I have an open mind, and I think fantasy is great. However, I'm doing this site for fun, and jail just doesn't sound that fun.

That being said, I appreciate the feedback and your opinions on this subject. Your input is important to us, and we keep it in mind whenever we make decisions that affect the site.

So, as I've stated before, if you "cannot" respect Laurel and her choices on HER site, leave. Pay for White Shadows (or other sites) or dig for "free" ones that allow Kiddie Porn.

 

[ronde]

Thunderous applause for The Earl

I have lived long enough to witness the beginning of television (at least in the area where I grew up) and the change in acceptance standards for other visual and audio entertainment, and couldn't agree with you more.

While this will probably brand me an old fart living in the past, it seems that some people today have the need to find some "thing" to blame for every ill of society. I believe a person predisposed to rape will commit rape regardless of what he or she might or might not read. "Unregistered's" logic would dictate that if his desires were realized, someone might also be urged to make them reality. Would he advocate this behavior?

Rapes have been committed since the beginning of time. In the "olden days" as my daughter once called them, they were usually not reported because of the stigma attached to the victim by the police and the rest of society.

I might add that I grew up with Warner Brother's cartoons, which are now censored for violent material, and not once have I had the urge to blow anyone up, smash them flat with a giant hammer, or twist them into a pretzel. I guess I'm not reading the right stories.

 

[ladyshy]

totally agree

ok people have a problem with you posting things on the internet about underage sex scenes be it rape or not but i've read dozens of books with such scenes but there against you publising it on the internet. what a bitch. WHY IS THAT ANYWAY?

 

[DVS]

I always hated my dad's logic, when I was younger. After I had done something he considered stupid, he would ask why I did it. Of course I said it was because everybody else was doing it. And, his response would always be something like "well, if everybody else jumped off the Empire State building, would you follow them down?"

As long as someone else does it first, or because it is in a written story, on a TV show or movie, or in the lyrics of a song, there will be crazy people who have no mind of their own blaming someone else for their stupid acts.

Thank God, I grew out of it, as most of us do.

 

[NCmVoyeur]

Data, anyone?

I raised on another thread the same question regarding forbidding stories involving a 16 year old engaged in consensual sex, while allowing those with the rape of a 19 year old. It was, as some noted, off-topic on that thread, so I let it go. But, here it is again. Once more into the breach . . .

I have to take issue with this comment though:

"Imagine: if some sick perverted reads a story like that, he may think that rape would be o.k."

Entertainment doesn't make people do things. Anyone who rapes someone does it because they are a twisted or evil person, not because they read it in a story and think that its okay. God I hate peoples obsessions with blaming entertainment for the world's evils. There were murders and rapes before internet and television you know.

There were indeed murders and rapes before. But that is largely beside the point, which is 'does violent pornography lead to an increase in that sort of behavior?'

There is a considerable amount of data that says 'yes, it does.' For example:

"The consumption of pornography can be directly linked to violence against women. Here are excerpts from the Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography:

Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography:
Section 5.2.1 Sexually Violent Material

…[C]linical and experimental research … [has] focused particularly on sexually violent material, [and] the conclusions have been virtually unanimous. In both clinical and experimental settings, exposure to sexually violent materials h as indicated an increase in the likelihood of aggression. More specifically, the research, … shows a causal relationship between exposure to material of this type and aggressive behavior towards women.

…The assumption that increased aggressive behavior towards women is causally related, for an aggregate population, to increased sexual violence is significantly supported by the clinical evidence, as well as by much of the less scientific evidence. This is not to say that all people with heightened levels of aggression will commit acts of sexual violence. But it is to say that over a sufficiently large number of cases we are confident in asserting that an increase in aggressive behavior directed at women will cause an increase in the level of sexual violence directed at women.

Since the clinical and experimental evidence supports the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between exposure to sexually violent materials and an increase in aggressive behavior directed towards women, and since we believe that an increase in aggressive behavior towards women will in a population increase the incidence of sexual violence in that population, we have reached the conclusion unanimously and confidently, that the available evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that substantial exposure to sexually violent materials as described here bears a causal relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and, for some subgroups, possibly to unlawful acts of sexual violence."

Source: "Violent Repercussions of Pornography,' http://eon.law.harvard.edu/vaw02/mod2-6.htm

So your assumption that "entertainment doesn't make people do things" is questionable, and appears contradicted by the studies that conclude otherwise.

I believe a person predisposed to rape will commit rape regardless of what he or she might or might not read. Rapes have been committed since the beginning of time

* * *

I might add that I grew up with Warner Brother's cartoons, which are now censored for violent material, and not once have I had the urge to blow anyone up, smash them flat with a giant hammer, or twist them into a pretzel. I guess I'm not reading the right stories.

By positing that would-be rapists are already 'predisposed' you've assumed away the problem.

To me, logic suggests that if some person(s) habitually read or see scenes from various sources, which all indicate that women 'deep down inside' really come to enjoy the sex when raped, that their internal barriers to that behavior (which society has tried to instill) might be lowered.

Of course, that is simply my reasoned belief until it is tested empirically. However, as noted above, that belief is supported when tested.

Rapes have always been committed, true. But that is beside the point. People have long been addicted to various substances, though that is no argument against making those substances illegal. People have long been prone to being mischief-makers and alarmists; but crying 'fire' in a crowded theater is still prohibited and is not protected by free speech rights.

And while many of us indulged countless hours of violent Warner Bros. cartoons without being the worse for wear, it remains true that partaking of a diet of violent pornography does lead in some to an increase in sexual violence. The question then is 'is the benefit to society of allowing that form of entertainment outweighed by the societal harm which it causes?'

The question whether the cut-off for characters should be 18 years or 16 years is truly trivial and largely arbitrary. However, I suspect that many would agree with disallowing stories involving sex with 14, 12, 10 or 8 year old children. (An assumption; I'm sure I'll hear directly. )

My view is that whatever reason is put forth for disallowing those stories can be applied with equal force to rape stories involving characters of any age. So if a person feels that stories showing 10 year olds engaged in sex aren't a good thing, to be consistent, the person should say the same about rape stories.

There. That ought to be grist for discussion.

 

[TheEarl]

Entertainment doesn't influence behaviour IMHO. If that behaviour was going to happen, then it would with or without the entertainment.

I take this as my example. Japan has a high quantity of violent computer games. They love that kind of thing and there's no age limit AFAIK, no green blood (censorship thing in Europe) and very little banning of violent games. Gun controls: Low gun crime rate.

USA has few gun controls, but has lots of violent computer games and lots of gun crimes. What's the obvious deduction from this data? Must be the violent computer games that are causing the gun crimes. That's specious reasoning and below Daily Mail standard.

It's a little simplistic to take the point of "there were crimes before entertainment" as I did earlier. No doubt some people do take inspiration, but the kind of people who take inspiration would commit the crime regardless. I get sick and tired of people blaming entertainment for the world's woes. People writing about rapes don't fuck up the world, people who rape do.

NCmVoyeur - I don't mean to trash your POV as it is all subjective, but this is a subject I feel strongly about and the "casual relationship" referred to in your data has a lot to do with the sickos who would do the thing in the first place. Trouble with psychology is there can never be a control group or a fair test as no two human beings are the same. Therefore its all opinions, so you're entitled to yours.

The Earl

 

[DVS]

Entertainment doesn't influence behaviour IMHO. If that behaviour was going to happen, then it would with or without the entertainment...

NCmVoyeur - I don't mean to trash your POV as it is all subjective, but this is a subject I feel strongly about and the "casual relationship" referred to in your data has a lot to do with the sickos who would do the thing in the first place. Trouble with psychology is there can never be a control group or a fair test as no two human beings are the same. Therefore its all opinions, so you're entitled to yours.The Earl

Earl, I also feel very strongly on this issue. I agree with you that our choice of entertainment does not cause us to do what we do, in life. Entertainment is so widespread that we all would be doing these evil things, if this was the case.

I do feel entertainment could be a trigger for the people who already had the preconceived notion in their head. Although, that in itself should not be enough to blame entertainment.

It is every human's responsibility to govern their own actions in society. If you feel you are inclined to watch porn before you go out and rape someone, you shouldn't be watching porn. If you tend to want to kill your neighbor after watching a cartoon mouse get the best of a cartoon cat on the tube, it seems likely you shouldn't be watching the cat and mouse cartoons.

I agree this is 'all in the mind' and because of this, we are all going to be individuals in how we react to certain stimuli. Some people are more easily brainwashed by what they see acted out in front of them just because they are more suseptible to the action.

This is not because of what they are seeing, or smelling, or feeling, but because of something much deeper in their mind. Be it because of culture, upbringing, lifestyle or what they had for breakfast, it was in their personality before the fact.

If this is seen as a triggering stimulus to some personalities, we should investigate these personalities and not the stimulus itself as the cause.

 

[Guest]

 

[DVS]

Laurel doesnt allow them for the reasons she stated, End of story.

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that Laurel has the ultimate say in the matter. We all know it is her site and her choice.

The thread originator did ask for a change, but it is already known why there will not be one.
But, we do have the right to continue with our thoughts and express our opinions.

 

[Guest]

 

[DVS]

i was replying to the thread originator

Oh, well then I agree with you, completely.

 

[Guest]

 

[SexyChele]

First, my comments to "Unregistered" would be to go out, raise the money, buy your own site, and allow whatever type of stories you wish to be posted there. There are plenty of sites out there that offer erotic writing for all tastes - freebie and pay sites. But, if you want total control, own your own.


Now, I happen to agree that entertainment does somewhat influence the society around it. I say "somewhat", and it is my opinion. Yes, the US has fewer restrictions on gun ownership. But we, and other countries as well, had much more lax laws regarding gun ownership in the 1800s and beyond. Contrary to what most people think of the "wild west" - there were certain codes of conduct and honor that were upheld. The same is true in other countries.

When you start to loosen the "boundaries" and those above mentioned "codes" of conduct and honor, I believe humankind's more undesirable qualities come out. Will a violent computer game cause a child to become violent? Not in and of itself, no. But when coupled with movies that are becoming increasingly more violent, a society that constantly craves to live on the edge by actually seeking out videos such as "The Faces of Death", and the apparant lack of "boundarie", I think it does breed a certain insensitivity to how violence affects others.

Rape is crime of violence and control. Rape, true rape, has nothing to do with love or even sex. In many situations, a rapist cannot ejaculate. What does this say? If he were to find sexual enjoyment in the act, then an orgasm would certainly be part of it.

Yes, there are men out there who do get "mixed messages", such as women "like" to be raped. Normally, the profile is such that these men have lives that are heavily influenced by pornography. Let's face it. Porn, for the most part, (pictorially, anyway) shows women in subservient situations - lower than men physically, having their heads held, their hands secured. Many, many men like the "cum shot" scenes, which by some men's definition means, "I'm marking my territory." You rarely, if ever, see a man with a woman's essence on his face. Now, why is that?

I'm not complaining. And I don't think that porn should be banned because of a few wackos out there. But everything in moderation is fine. Some men don't understand what that means. Some women don't either, but more on that in a sec. I also don't think that violent movies should be banned, nor do I accept that guns should be illegal. People, both men and women, should be responsible.

Now, rape - or rather the idea of being taken with some force - is a huge fantasy for a lot of women. I count myself in that number. I've written a non-consent story, and it didn't bother me one way or the other. But there is a difference between thinking of a fantasy and real-life. I've also engaged in rape role-play with my partners. Again. A big difference between engaging in play with a man you trust completely, as opposed to a complete stranger who could be using a real weapon to force his will.

I've known women who have been raped - some violently. And all that I know of have said the same thing: it was about power, control, and humiliation. And most of the men involved, when caught, had extensive collections of porn, and lived in a world viewed through the camera of a porn photographer. These men truly believed that what they saw in mags and in videos was the "real deal", they were dwelling outside of reality.

So. If the idea is to say that rape is a crime, and that reading rape stories can lead to the commission of the crime, then we would need to ban all porn. Remember, it is not necessarily true that men who rape only buy/view/look at porn that involves rape or force. Many times it is a varied collection. Do we really want to go there?

Now, to get into underage sex - just where would it stop? Most say 16. Why? Why not 15? Or 14? And there are cultures where girls are married at 12 - so why not that young? You begin to go down that slippery slope - just look at sites where kiddie porn is allowed. Or stop into a chatroom. I've been approached by men who asked me if I was into "age play" roleplay. When I've asked how young they like women to pretend to be, overwhelming the answer is 10 or younger. I communicated with one man over a period of several months (never engaged in roleplay with him). At first, he was asking for women willing to play 14 - 16 year olds. Eventually, the last time I spoke with him, he was looking for women willing to "become" 9 year olds. The slippery slope.

I work for Children's Protection Services. I've seen children as young as 2 who have been sexually assaulted. It ain't pretty. But think of this: a child who engages in sexual activity with an adult, in most cases, feels they cannot resist. Now you have a combination of underage sex AND rape. (And yes, we have even seen 14 and 15 year olds who have been molested by stepfathers and mother's boyfriends who felt they had no other choices)

Sorry for the length of this. Jsut felt I had to say something.

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

I know, Literotica doesn't allow stories with people under the age of 18, because of the Law.

As far as I know, that isn't the reason. Lit forbids sex under 18 because the management has decided to forbid stories about sex under 18. That's their privilege.
I wrote a story set in medieval Europe. The girl was 16 (and I created a good reason she wasn't 15) and a BRIDE. Now there weren't many first-time brides over 17 in medieval Europe. (Lots of widows remarried.) You might think that this would be a more acceptable story than one in which the girl is 19 and raped. It certainly would be more acceptable to ME. But I don't run Literotica. Laurel does. So her rules apply.

 

[karmadog]

re:The Presisdent's Commission

The Meese Commission as it was commonly called was composed of people with an agenda. Very few of them could be taken seriously as scientists, and the ones that could, raised very serious objections to this report but they were suppressed. Reagan and his flunkies wanted to appease the extreme right wing of the party by taking on porn. Meese and the DOJ were prosecuting pornographers under obscenity laws at a pretty good rate, and they were winning. For the most part, they were going after the more extreme stuff, but one of the women on the panel wanted to go after Playboy.

The administration wanted a good rationale to go after the people they were prosecuting, so the commission was born. They had an outcome written before they ever put pen to paper.

Many of the researchers who's studies the Commission cited as showing that pornography caused violence claimed that their studies showed no correlation or that pornography actually decreased violent tendencies.

In short, the Meese Commission's report means less than nothing.

 

[NCmVoyeur]

If I recall, the Playboy aspect was well-satirized in Doonesbury (Reagan's son was a columnist then; or something like that).

The Meese Commision Report has its legitimate detractors. I should have picked a different study. (Serves me right for being lazy and copying the first usable 'sound-bite.')

Since that 1986 Report, others have done corroborating studies. Such as:

Pornography and rape: a causal model. Russell,D.E. Political Psych. 1988 9: 41- 73.
Abstract: Contends that in order for rape to occur, a man must not only be predisposed to rape, but his internal and social inhibitions against acting out rape desires must be undermined. It is theorized that pornography (1) predisposes some men to want to rape women or intensifies the predisposition in other men already so predisposed; (2) undermines some men's internal inhibitions against acting out their rape desires; and (3) undermines some men's social inhibitions against the acting out. Research substantiating this theory is presented and discussed and suggestions are made for further research.

And:

Violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of sexual aggression. Demare,D. et. al J. Res. Personality 1988 22: 140-153.
Abstract: 222 undergraduate males were administered an attitudes survey examining pornography use, attitudes, and self-reported likelihood of rape (LR) or using sexual force (LF). Nonviolent pornography was used by 81% of subjects (Ss) within the previous year, whereas 41% and 35% had used violent and sexually violent pornography, respectively. 27% of Ss indicated some hypothetical LR or LF. Discriminant function analysis revealed that use of sexually violent pornography and acceptance of interpersonal violence against women were uniquely associated with LF and LR. It is hypothesized that the specific fusion of sex and violence in some pornographic stimuli and in certain belief systems may produce a propensity to engage in sexually aggressive behavior.

My purpose is not to turn this into comparative study on the research (some of which is inconclusive and contradictory), but rather to challenge the seemingly a priori belief of some here that a causal relationship between environment and behavior is simply not possible.

 

[clairepenn]

I can understand what the thread originator is saying, but at the same time I also completely understand why Laurel made the decision to prohibit stories with underage characters. It is silly that the gov't overlooks stories about one illegal thing, yet prosecutes site owners that post stories about another illegal thing (one far less ominous, IMHO). However, one can't be too careful these days in Amerikka.

This is why I vote Libertarian...

 

[Bob Waters]

Why is it that almost evey post on this forum either requesting a story about an under aged person or complaining that there are no stories about minors on this site is by an unregistered poster?

Have the courage of your own convictions and identify yourself or quit complaining.

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Sex with 16y vs. Rape stories ?

Originally posted by Uther_Pendragon
As far as I know, that isn't the reason. Lit forbids sex under 18 because the management has decided to forbid stories about sex under 18. That's their privilege.
I wrote a story set in medieval Europe. The girl was 16 (and I created a good reason she wasn't 15) and a BRIDE. Now there weren't many first-time brides over 17 in medieval Europe. (Lots of widows remarried.) You might think that this would be a more acceptable story than one in which the girl is 19 and raped. It certainly would be more acceptable to ME. But I don't run Literotica. Laurel does. So her rules apply.

Our decision to not accept stories that include scenes of sexual relations involving people under the age of 18 is not meant as a slight to those who write those stories, nor is it meant as a moral judgment on such stories. We do not feel comfortable posting stories involving sex with young children. Therefore, an age line had to be drawn. For convenience sake, we drew it at the age of consent in our area - 18 years of age. It's that simple.

We do not believe that ANY fiction should be banned or forbidden. We are staunchly against government censorship. However, we do have the right as a private entity to set our own rules. There are many sites which do accept stories involving underage persons, and we support their right to set whatever rules they see fit - without governmental interference.

I personally do not believe that fiction of any kind can force a healthy person to act in unhealthy ways. Rapists may be drawn to rape fiction, but many many healthy people can also enjoy non-consent fantasies without feeling compelled to act. In fact, such fiction can be a catharsis. I think we start down a dangerous road when we begin shifting blame from criminals to things like media and art.

We appreciate your input, and hope you understand our position. Good discussion.

 

[Coolville]

no emoticons were harmed in the writing of this message

All love and respect to Literotica. I understand Laurel's decision.

Purely for the record, however, I think it is one of the ironies of having a 'World' Wide Web that one country's societal norms - which are far more restrictive and conservative - dictate the content written by citizens of other, more liberal countries. Ironic because the fantastic world of Literotica boasts readers and writers from the whole planet. Our freedom of speech is restricted somehow. Sure, some of the grumpy members can shout, "Well, then leave!" but what is at stake is Global Free Speech and that shouldn't be dissed.

A French court can rule that Yahoo cannot auction various products banned in France and Europe on their site because the internet is global. So maybe we should sue George Bush in order to get American sites to allow European cultural and societal norms!!!! .....................

...........nah, fuhgetaboutit..... let's just write and read good stories and enjoy each other's creativity.

but my 2 cents (Eurocents) has been registered. I'm off to write about a 70-year virgin and her 102 year old daddy...

love and respect....

 

[clairepenn]

Re: Re: Re: Sex with 16y vs. Rape stories ?

We do not believe that ANY fiction should be banned or forbidden. We are staunchly against government censorship. However, we do have the right as a private entity to set our own rules. There are many sites which do accept stories involving underage persons, so there's no need for us to do so.

Although it hasn't yet happened on this thread, it always frustrates me when I see someone scream "Censorship!" when their post is deleted from an Internet message board. Recently I saw some idiot on Yahoo blabbering on about the 1st Amendment and how Yahoo supposedly infringed on his Constitutional rights by deleting some of his messages. Ummmm...No they didn't. The 1st Amendment refers to censorship by the government. It was never meant to refer to censorship by individuals or private entities. I can't drive over to someone's house and stand out on their lawn screaming "Motherfucker!!!!" They own the property, and they have the right to restrict what I can do while on their property. Ergo Yahoo has the right to restrict what can be posted on the message boards they own and operate.

I personally do not believe that fiction of any kind can force a healthy person to act in unhealthy ways. Rapists may be drawn to rape fiction, but many many healthy people can also enjoy non-consent fantasies without feeling compelled to act. In fact, such fiction can be a catharsis. I think we start down a dangerous road when we begin shifting blame from criminals to things like media and art.

I agree. While I don't see the appeal of non-consent and incest stories, I don't think reading them is going to turn someone into a rapist or make them want to diddle their sibling. It just doesn't work that way. What television series inspired Vlad the Impaler? What movie gave Jack the Ripper his ideas? What video game did Hitler emulate?

 

[Wyatt]

Why is it that almost evey post on this forum either requesting a story about an under aged person or complaining that there are no stories about minors on this site is by an unregistered poster?

Have the courage of your own convictions and identify yourself or quit complaining.

the fact that they wish to remain Anon. partly explains why under age sex isn't allowed to be prtrayed on this site don't you think?

 

[jon.hayworth]

Personally I am glad that Literotica has an 18 Rule (although I once inadvertently fell foul of the 18 rule by implacation and ommission - this involved a small rewrite of "Mother's Old Photos").

The reason for this is the UK's Protection of Children Act, (Earl you might care to take a look at its draconian provisions). That means if you download images (define images) that relate to young people and sex you can end up in jail and on the Sex Offenders Register.

As for the stories that people can be incited to crime by fiction - it would be well to remember that most of the statistics are based upon claims made by defendants in court. When "Clockwork Orange" was released around the world defence lawyers used it in their pleas of mitigation for youths convicted of crimes of violence. David Kronenbergs "Crash" has been used to defend car thieves called joyriders. Remember Lawyers earn their livings thinking up reasonable excuses for their clients crimes.

Remember the adage "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

jon