i wouldnt say that this is very surprising.
this society is very patriarchal and, sexually especially, very focused around male "needs". that means that womens sexuality is supressed in favour of satisfying the desires of boyfriendss/husbands/whatrever.
i think that its unfair, though, to say that this is a "drug"issue, like that people who use marijuana are "more likely" to rape people. 
its actually a much bigger issue than just the "underclasses" that the bourgeoisie like to blame for everything. in fact i wouldnt be suprised if sexual exploitation is more common among the "rich and powerful" than it among the "pot smoking poor", its just that their kind of exploitation has been "legitamized" by society.
this study/story also doesnt address how to solve this problem and even worse id say that its missinge the point of what the problem is.
this isnt a sexual problem! this is a societal one. sex is just another manifestation of a generaly sexist environment in which women are routinely expected to "submit" to men.
and becuase of tyhat the solution needs to come from female empowerment. women and girls shouldnt be taught "absitance" (like georege bush would want :angry
or "modesty" (as some poster here said in another thread <_<) but to claim their own sexuality and to stand up for themselves!
and though it doesnt need to be said i hope, obviously anyone who intentionally forced someone else into sex should be locked up and never released. and a swift kick to their sexual organs wouldnt hurt either. :angry:
My body, my labor, my power.
</div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE (LSD @ Apr 30 2006, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>Now Leninists and strict Marxists will tell you that "transitional" hierarchy is nescessary to "prepare" us for classless society, but notice how they avoid telling you exactly what "transitional" means in definite terms.
In the Soviet Union "transitional" meant about 73 years and the only thing that it "transitioned" into was gangster capitalism.
China's not quite there yet, so far only 57 years of "transition", but it looks like the end result's not going to be any more encouraging.
At this point, the doctrine of "transition" had been pretty much debunked. The only thing that creating a "new kind" of hiearchy does is create a new hierarchy. And if we're interested in emancipation, giving ourselves new masters doesn't exactly help.</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'>
</div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE (LSD @ Jul 17 2006, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>I've got the least sectarian cock on the board!</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'>