>

Admittedly, the idea of what constitutes a "strong" female hero is all over the place. 
I think most of the issues revolving around a physically strong female hero isn't that a woman can't be strong, just that it can be immersion-breaking to see a woman who's 5'3" and maybe 100 lbs tossing guys who're over six feet tall and 200 lbs around as if they're ragdolls. 
In my mind, a strong female hero doesn't mean she can bench-press a truck, it means she's smart, resourceful, and understands when she needs assistance and when she can do it on her own. Some people might see the latter as weakness, but it's not. Knowing you need help and accepting it is called maturity, and a lot of male heroes in Hollywood are basically emotionally-stunted psychopaths who'll make some ridiculous quip after killing a ton of no-name henchmen. 
Good examples of "strong" female heroes would be Ellen Ripley (Alien series), Sarah Connor (Terminator series), Lorraine Broughton (Atomic Blonde), Flynne Fisher (The Peripheral, TV series), Lady Cornelia Locke (The English, limited TV series), and there are undoubtedly many others I can't think of at the moment. All of these women can kick butt, but they also understand their own limitations, ask for help when they need it, and aren't a "one-woman army" who also hates men. 
But this is somewhat off-topic... :)
I agree that sexual assault, female on male, should be treated just as seriously as the reverse, and I agree that there are double standards. However, I do not accept the premise that male sexual violence against women is treated as harshly as you imply. Everybody hates a hypothetical rapist, but people often turn a blind eye or make excuses when it turns out to be their friends or family, and actual conviction rates are pitiful. >

Even if that’s true society as a whole would demolish that person. Women can be found to actually have assaulted someone and no one really talks about it >

Hey, so this isn’t as true as we’d like it to be.  The guy who was convicted of violently raping me served six months house arrest during which he was able to leave the house for work and limited recreation.  He hasn’t been shunned or ostracized.  I actually did lose friends because I reported him, and lost my job because I was missing work for the trial.
I won’t go into lots of detail about what he did, but it took me six months to physically recover.
His life is just fine. >

I don’t think this one example can trump numerous other ones. And by what measure do you say his life is fine? >

You've got this a bit reversed.  
The cases of a man sexually harrassing/assaulting a women are more likely to have very few consequences for the aggressor than otherwise.  
Most women have experienced/will experience such a thing in their life, and their aggressor won't be convicted of anything because it will not be reported, dismissed, or have barely any punishment for it. >

But we aren’t compare victims justice to abusers consequences. We’re comparing male victims to female victims and the outcomes. >

Not in the last 4 comments. >

Huh? >

Your argument is all over the place.
Premises: 

if a woman s*xually assaults a man, it is treated as something less serious. This is unacceptable

True. And valid.

Regardless of gender, a 16-year-old is vulnerable to being manipulated or exploited.

True. And valid. But I'm getting closer to asking you the important question.

So as a result, I think that the age of consent laws should be changed.

That's a non sequitur. Age of consent laws don't have any bearing on the social views of gendered victims. E.g., age of consent laws create a victim/perpetrator by definition. You're talking about two different things - law and culture.
The bulk of what you're trying to discuss here is covered by 'traditional values.' Women were generally viewed as delicate - and in need of care. This cultural thought has shifted. But it's slow. So we still have a lot of the 'care' stuff when it's not necessary. Family courts are a good example.
So, yes, there is a double standard. But no, I don't think it's wrong. I just think the standard is warped. Men and women are different - biologically, mentally, etc. We are the same species but serve entirely different roles within our species. Having standards is not a bad thing - having irrational standards is.
This is slowly changing. Women are no longer experiencing the 'care' (I use that term loosely, because it was mainly just misogyny)  that they did in the past. And that standard takes time to change. I honestly think that the bigger issue is in 'pretending people can do whatever they want without consequence' as that seems to be the more common thread. 
E.g., sex-workers claiming that sex work is an admirable venture. >

I agree to an extent. Age of consent laws do create a victim by definition, and age of consent laws aren't gender specific. I do think however in some countries they can be improved, as for the age of consent laws in the US, they are good but that does not apply for the rest of the world. The view is changing, I agree.
I do not however understand what you mean buy

So, yes, there is a double standard. But no, I don't think it's wrong.

Could you elaborate on that section? >


I do think however in some countries they can be improved

Based on what? There's no universal right and wrong. You're speaking of a cultural issue - not an issue of all humanity.

Could you elaborate on that section?

Double standards are only double standards when you ignore the actual differences in principles. You can agree or disagree all you want - but true double standards are incredibly rare. >

I agree that there is no universal right or wrong, what I am saying is that there are some principals that everyone agrees on namely; the age of consent should not be lower than 13,  a 40 year old should not be allowed to have sex with a 14 year old, even if she has consented and rape should be treated very seriously. This unfortunately, is not the case for some countries in the world. 
True double standards are rare, true. I do think that double standards are at play to an extent here though. >


some principals that everyone agrees on namely; the age of consent should not be lower than 13

While I agree, I'm going to be the devil's advocate.
Why? What the difference between 13 and 14? 14 and 16? 16 and 18? >

Generally, 13 is the age where puberty starts to really hit, and hormones that make you horny, start to increase drastically at that age. There is little difference between 13 and 14 but generally 13 is widely accepted as the start of major puberty, and as of the start of teenager life. As for difference between 14 and 16 and 18, a 16 year old is generally going to be more mature and intelligent then a 14 year old and so one... There is not concrete answer but there has to be A answer, as there has to be A age, it's the same thing with the age that you become an adult, it is somewhat arbitrary, yes! But does there have to be an age, also yes. >

Puberty starts on average at 11 for girls and 12 for boys.
That throws a wrench in your 'at least 14' argument based on puberty. >

I did not state that puberty started, I stated that hormones that make you horny start to increase drastically at that age.
The vast majority of 11/12 year olds have not gotten horny ever. >

So your argument just went from subjective to really subjective. You're attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.
There is no 'this person is fully capable' brand. It's shades of grey all the way up. Which is why we look down on employer/employee relationships - because of the power imbalance. Fully capable adults - yet we still allow for a victim status.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than 'I think it's unfair' but you haven't explained the why behind it. Just observations that have explanations. >

I agree, that there is not this person is fully capable brand, I also agree  that if there is a power imbalance in the relationship it should be looked down upon. But that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. 
What I'm trying to say (in one sentence) is that sexual assault, rape and similar acts should be treated very seriously, regardless of gender. >

I’m sorry to hear you feel this way. I can tell you that in the US women & men don’t typically get justice over their abusers. Most people who are sexually assaulted don’t report their assault. Due to various reasons we know that at least 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted by age 18. The statistics are that 1 in 7 men are sexually assaulted by age 18. There’s no doubt that statistics based on self-report are not accurate.
What you have asked about is not a male vs female issue. Sexual assault & sexual harassment are a human issue. >

I agree, that was my main point, that sexual assault should be treated seriously, disregarding gender. >

Of course. Sexual assault allegations should never be treated differently & there is not evidence that the reports that are made by men & women are treated differently. Unfortunately most victims, men & women, never report their assault to authorities. It’s a humiliating experience to even bring a report of assault to authorities & the legal system has a terrible track record when it comes to charges brought & convictions of the perpetrators of sexual violence.
There is no evidence that males & females are treated differently in regards to the seriousness with which their allegations are taken. I don’t doubt that you are expressing a feeling from your own experience, but to stop sexual predators it is most valuable to have males & females work together to change the dynamics of how all victims are treated. >

Your post starts with sexual harassment. First question: What is your evidence that women’s reports of sexual harassment are treated more seriously than men’s?
You then move on to sexual assault & state that when women accuse men of sexual assault the men are “thrown in jail.” Second question: What is your evidence that men who sexually assault women are jailed at higher rates than women who sexually assault men? 
Third question: Why did you not ask about men who sexually assault men? >

I disagree, but only in the perspective of how society is gradually changing. The laws and the police on the other hand? No, that is unfortunate, but social progress is and will put pressure to improve the issue of legal processes.
The stories of sexual assault of men, here and that I have heard elsewhere are taken with care by those who read them, I myself try to say fight, yes.... Surely nothing will come of it, but with women either, the first few years of fighting for it to be taken seriously will always be like that. And it's hard, it's horrible that you have to expose yourself, but it's the step you have to take. The law is like that, until they kill someone it was not forbidden to kill someone.
Women continue to be recriminated, that it may be false or that they are guilty.
Men are recriminated in different ways, for their strength, sexuality, which is false.
Victims, please look for people who LISTEN AND SUPPORT YOU, FIGHT to be recognized and get justice. From the bottom of my heart, I wish you all the best. Slowly societies are seeing sex crime for what it is, a crime. >

The reason sexual assault (SA) isn't taken as seriously when women commit it against men is because we, as a society, don't view women as threatening or potentially dangerous. This isn't true and plenty of women have proven that the so-called "fairer sex" can be just as violent and screwed up as any man.
But facts are often obscured by societal norms and values. Humans are, at their core, a species that values storytelling and communicating information with a personal element to it. Most people, unless they have a legal or scientific background (or they're unusually interested in the topic at hand), tend to zone out when people bring up facts, data, charts, etc.
Unfortunately, some of the blame is due to men themselves. We balk at the idea of ever appearing "weak" or not in control of the situation. We see ourselves as powerful leaders (or worse yet, "alpha males") even when we know that's not true for the majority of us, and even when it is true, it isn't true ALL the time.
If a woman can overpower a man and SA him, men take that as a personal attack not against men as a whole, but themselves. It makes us stop and for a moment, the delusion we've created for ourselves as the "the hero" is broken and we realize we might actually be vulnerable.
So how do we respond to this? Do we unite in solidarity and help one another? Hell no! We make jokes about the guy who was a "wuss" and "allowed" himself to become a victim. Like sharks, we smell blood in the water and eat our own.
Interestingly enough, it's because men so rarely work together (unless the task is traditionally manly, such as building something, shooting guns, or driving cars really fast) that certain body-related issues — like height or genitalia size — also remain targets for jokes and abrasive commentary.
The reason I brought that up is because look at what women have done with weight-related issues. They banded together (not all of them, certainly, but enough) and started a movement against body shaming, despite the ridicule that followed and still happens from time to time. It's just one more example of men turning on one another instead of propping each other up.
(Just so you know, I'm not taking the high road here and claiming that I, a man, haven't been guilty of this behavior in the past myself. I try not to act that way now, partially because I've mellowed with age, but also because there's really no reason to be a jerk. It doesn't help me or anyone else.)
And for the record, I'm not saying ALL of this is the fault of men. It's not. However, it's also true that we're not doing ourselves any favors and instead are hurting each other in the long run. >

Society paints women as victims. We’re weaker, more vulnerable and need to be protected. As such, we can’t hold power of any kind - we can’t be heros, nor can we be villains, since heros and villains are equally powerful. Just look at all the rage that rises up any time there’s a strong female lead since it’s so “unrealistic” for a woman to be strong.
Men are strong. Male heroes and villains and overrepresented in media. There’s barely such a thing as a weak man in media, and if he exists, he’s the butt of the joke. 
Since we as a society see men as holding all the power, it’s hard to take male victims and female villains/heroes seriously.