I refer to the letter Rape amendment debate not 'battle of sexes' by Heong Hong and agree that it should not be though too often it is.

Rape is essentially violence committed against another person. In any alleged assault by one person against another, there are questions of provocation and contributory factors. Moreover, the 'equal rights for women brigade' should agree that one sex should not be pre-determined as the rapist.

Women's groups apparently want to help rape survivors file charges and claim there is 'a very low' chance that women might 'cry wolf'. Are laws just meant to help purported victims file charges and formulated on merely the basis likelihoods and possibilities? Or should laws be such that they could be enforced fairly and impartially so that justice is seen to be done?

If law enforcers try to 'persuade' the survivor to get married with the offender, could it be because the alleged female victim has implied her role in a consensual relationship that went sour? Is there no such thing as entrapment?

Under present laws teenaged 'men' seduced into sex by 'underage girls' are charged with rape after the latter's parents find out. This is legislation running amok.

Rape is a serious offence devastating to the victim but unfortunately the self-appointed women's group's are contributing to trivialising the crime with their ever-expanding definitions and are doing a disservice to their self-designated 'victim' constituency.