1. Can you elaborate your point with some examples, after which I could consider the matter without just ranting free-form about my subjective interpretations of the behaviors of people who pissed me off, as though they each represented the whole of humanity. I looooove to do that, but it would not answer your question, which, I think, is a question of concern to myself, and which I don't think anyone has answered. But, a preliminary opinion, if I dare, from a rather resignationist structuralist standpoint, is that the prevention of sexual violence is not the point of the rituals that you are talking about, but only a small part of the contents of the text which is recited in acting those rituals out. It doesn't ultimately matter if results occur which correspond to the goals stated in those texts, so long as the texts are only momentary rationalizations, which make sense of a series of social movements and compulsive behaviors that no one involved actually understands, but which, without anyone's conscious agency, reinforce the identity and the power structures inherent in the group. The case, anecdotal and not empirical, that I have made in the past, is that I have observed many habitual sex offenders, in the good old fashioned sense of the word--they habitually, consciously, physically violated people when consent was questionable, impossible, and in some cases explicitly refused--maintaining places of privilege and praise in the community, and their behaviors being excused or even praised, while people who did nothing at all, or who made distasteful jokes for which they should have been summarily slapped and told to shut up and that the were not, in fact, funny, which they surely knew, and needed a lesson in etiquette and tact; or more often in how not to speak too wittily before those who are too obtuse to recognize one's facetious references, have spent months upon months attending interrogation sessions, legitimated only by the fact that these people chose, out of some sense of duty to their "community" to acknowledge the authority of this court and comply with their arbitrary proceedings, in which everyone who ever had a problem with this person for any (italics) reason is permitted to demand a confession and apology, under penalty of being permanently branded a sex offender. There is something very Doctor Phil about it if you ask me. That fat fucker, telling people how to lose weight, who is only on T.V. because he lost his license to practice legitimate psychotherapy for having sexual relationships with his patients, telling people how to overcome their "sex addictions," this is uncannily similar to the situation that I, albeit not entirely accurately I'm sure, perceive. There are genuine rapists facilitating the "anti-authoritarian" trials of people who forgot to ask if they could slap their rape fantasy partner's ass 11 times instead of the contractually agreed upon 10. For the record, lost here in computerland, I've never been accused of anything, because I am a recluse and a misanthropic introvert. I feel that this adds at least a teensy bit of credibility to my observation. It's just not about accountability, any more than the Catholic Mass is about "for the sake of his sorrowful passion." It's about ritualizin the activities of the community in such a way as to establish, without a doubt, that they are one. I think it's awful; many who understand it the same way (Durkheim, Mauss, etc) think it's handy-dandy, but it's never about what the subjects involved say it's about. Those are just sentences imbedded in the complex semiotic web of a collective act of magic. You cannot assault or be assaulted if you're alone. Try that.