Waddaya mean she's a minor? She was a MAJOR 'ho! [Archive]

Abe User

06-06-2002, 12:01 PM

Point of clarification:

First, In New York (my state), Penal Code 130.20 - Rape in the third degree, makes statutory rape a strict liability crime. See People v. Dozier, 424 NYS2d 1010 (1st Dept 1980). Also, in New York, consent by the minor is not a defense. People v. Grauer 42 NYS 721 (1896). Also of interest, the NY Court stated that the reason for the law is a public policy interest in keeping young girls from geting pregnant. I am unaware of the rules in the 49 other states, but with all due respect to my buddy Sua -- No. [insert Family Feud buzzer sound here].

Second, I am not trying to discuss R Kelly's specific situation. I was thinking more along the lines of your average inebriated 18-22 y.o who hooks up with your average inebriated 17 y.o in hot pants that tells him (or her -- lets be fair) that she is 19, and may even have a fake ID to prove it. She comes home late, Mom & Dad are not happy, and Boom little johnny gets busted for a sex crime. I am not here to defend perverts looking for little girls, or R Kelly for that matter (there are other crimes on the books for them). I'm talking about possible changes to the written law to correspond with to social changes.

That being said, discussions about R Kelly specifically are not really what I had in mind. His acts just got me thinking that if Brittany Spears can get parents to buy their 16-17 y.os halter tops and short-shorts, how can society hold young 'fishermen' responsible for taking the bait? It borders on entrapment (minus the acts by a government authority), and is similar to making it a larceny to pick up a wallet that is sitting on the sidewalk.

Ok? Ding-ding! Begin round two....

shrew

06-06-2002, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Maeglin
Yeah, I suppose it's convenient to ignore anything that might undermine the validity of your rather ahistorical, whitewashed view of a golden age of sexual propriety. Like justice.

Damn, maeglin, what'd I ever do to you? I fully admitted I'm a prude, so keep that bug up your ass to yourself if you don't mind.

Hamlet

06-06-2002, 01:51 PM

Legal Stuff:

In Illinois, where R. Kelly is charged, it is NOT a defense to Criminal Sexual Assault charges that the defendant had a reasonable belief regarding the age of the victim, but it IS a defense to Criminal Sexual Abuse. The differences between those two charges involves the age difference between the ages of the defendant and the victim, as well as the extent of the sexual actions (i/e whether there was penetration.)

However, R. Kelly isn't charged (yet?) for sexually abusing the girl victim, he is charged for the videotape, which is child pornography. The relevant part of that statute reads:

A person commits the offense of child pornography who: (1) films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise depicts or portrays ... any child whom he knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 . . .

So it could be a defense that R. Kelly didn't know (and shouldn't have known) that the victim was under 18. But let's not kid ourselves here. R. Kelly is a scumbag who gets his jollys raping young girls. He just happens to pick victims who he can impress or intimidate into "consenting", and buy-off from reporting.

Not so Legal:

Abe I am glad you posted again in this thread. Based on your OP, I was all set to rip you up one side and down the other for intimating that somehow the victim in the R.Kelly case deserved to be abused because she appeared to be older. I am still upset at your underlying assumptions, i/e that if a person under the age of consent looks older, well, then it shouldn't be illegal. And saying that your hypothetical 17 year old girl "entrapped" the poor, drunk a******* is incredibly offensive. These views you are expressing are typical "blame the victim" crap you see in a lot of these types of cases, and they disgust me to no end. That being said, in your example, if the girl is between 13 and 17, and the boy was less than 5 years older than her, it would be criminal sexual abuse, and the boy would have the defense that he reasonably believed she was over 17.

Sengkelat

06-06-2002, 02:44 PM

"Blaming the victim" always sounds like a bad thing to do. But if a 17 year old girl chases after and ends up sleeping with an older man, is she a victim?

My sister, when she was 16, dated a 22 year old guy. She was stoked that she got this guy. Both parties were pretty happy with the arrangement, and she wasn't traumatized or permanently scarred. I certainly wouldn't say she "entrapped" him, since he had the power to decline anything she offered, but at the same time I would say she's 50% responsible for any statutory rape that occurred. Or possibly more, if she lied about her age. Am I now "blaming the victim"?

As for the laws, it'd be nice if there was a better way to define if a person is capable of giving consent other than their age. I know 25 year olds that don't have the maturity to understand the consequences of their actions, and I have known minors who had better judgment than many adults. However, an age-barrier is simpler, and mostly works for the majority. Oh well.

Abe User

06-06-2002, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Hamlet
Legal Stuff:

Abe I am glad you posted again in this thread. Based on your OP, I was all set to rip you up one side and down the other for intimating that somehow the victim in the R.Kelly case deserved to be abused because she appeared to be older. I am still upset at your underlying assumptions, i/e that if a person under the age of consent looks older, well, then it shouldn't be illegal. And saying that your hypothetical 17 year old girl "entrapped" the poor, drunk a******* is incredibly offensive. These views you are expressing are typical "blame the victim" crap you see in a lot of these types of cases, and they disgust me to no end. That being said, in your example, if the girl is between 13 and 17, and the boy was less than 5 years older than her, it would be criminal sexual abuse, and the boy would have the defense that he reasonably believed she was over 17.

Hamlet thanks for holding off on "ripping me up one side and down the other". But, you are still missing my true underlying assumptions. Your assertion that "the boy would have the defense that he reasonably believed she was over 17" does NOT apply in New York (See my second post w/citations). Perhaps I'm thinking a bit too local here, but that is my focus.

And also, I'm not looking to "blame the victim" either. I'm talking about criminal consequences for consentual acts. In my mind under the circumstances as presented, there is no victim, but there is a chargable felony. My point is that (at least in NY -- probably elsewhere as well) knowedge of the 'consenting' minor's age is NOT an element of the crime of statutory rape -- and that in our society, it should be. The law in NY is that a 17 y.o. is simply incapable of consent. My argument is that this precipt is outdated -- and that teens are able to effectively consent earlier than 17.

Hey we were all seventeen once.....I knew what I was doing, how 'bout you?

Maeglin

06-06-2002, 03:52 PM

Damn, maeglin, what'd I ever do to you? I fully admitted I'm a prude, so keep that bug up your ass to yourself if you don't mind.

I do not think admission really makes much of a difference in this context. Substitute "prude" with your derision of choice and you will see what I mean. Admission != mitigation.

In my personal life I am a shocking prude as well. But I am equally shocked that to some, sexual propriety is more important than justice. I don't think I am out of line at all by remarking accordingly. Feel free to wax poetic about a scarlet-lettered golden age, and I will feel free to cast the occasional aspersion.

Or better yet, perhaps you would prefer to discuss the social consequences of stringent sexual mores...The good ones and the bad ones.

Hamlet

06-06-2002, 04:29 PM

Abe

I don't know much about N.Y. criminal law, but Rape in the Third Degree can only be done if the Defendant is over the age of 21. It is another example of the legislature's proper concern over the age differential between the perp and the victim. You right in saying that , when the defendant is over the age of 21, the ability of the 17 year old girl to consent is not an issue. She can't consent, regardless of how much older she looks, dresses or acts. And you know what, I'm fine with that. I don't care if that 17 year old girl can get into clubs and party, and go home with some sleazebag. That sleazebag better make sure that the girl is above 17, or he deserves what he gets. Now if you want to argue whether 17 is a proper age of consent, that is one thing. It's another to say that some sleazebag over the age of 21 shouldn't be charged because he couldn't be bothered to make sure his victim is over 17.

wring

06-06-2002, 04:31 PM

different states have widely divergent laws on how to deal w/the age of consent. IN my state (MI), age of consent is 16. If you're under that, any contact of the groin, thigh, breast, buttocks is punishable. Consent is not a defense, neither do they have to prove that you knew the person was under age. (although realistically, if you did know, 'cause you were the teacher etc., prepare for the worst). And yes, they do prosecute 18 year olds for contact w/15 year olds.

I taught my son that before he has contact w/a female, he needs to confirm proof of age. Presently (just finishing high school), it's not that difficult, but I fear for him in the upcoming years.

on the R. Kelley case, according to this (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/06/kelly.hearing/index.html) if it's the girl they think it is, she's the daughter of 'an associate', so the defense " I thought she was older" would be a tough gig.

Is it totally fair? no. Is it totally screwed up? no. I don't think it's a 'bad' idea to have some knowledge of who you're pumping.

OTOH, we routinely bust grocery store clerks, bars for selling to minors, and don't buy the "I thought he/she was of age", "They told me so" defense to that. And, frankly I have no problem with holding sexual contact to at least as high of a standard as "wanna beer with that hotdog?"

tulley

06-06-2002, 05:17 PM

I think this whole thing is just plain dumb. Women (occasionaly even ones - gasp - under the age of 18) like to have sex with older men. Men like to have sex with younger women. I'm not condoning dirty old men to take advantage of young girls, but as a society I think we make way too big a deal of this kinda thing.

Its a part of this whole 'Sex is bad/dirty/wrong' way of thinking which, as I said earlier, is just plain dumb. Sex, done properly between consenting individuals, is great. Sure this probably wasnt the safest situation but that's life. Try to abolish sexuality. Go on. I dare you. You wouldn't be the first to try and fail. Human Beings have sex, sometimes dirty, shocking, unsafe sex. That is not an issue for the law to handle, but for the individuals involved. If this was non-consentual, fine no argument, its rape. Otherwise, leave this for the individuals/families involved.

Folks, its not like a switch turns on at 18 and makes it ok to have sex with a 30 year old. Life is shades of grey, some people are ready for things before others.

I taught my son that before he has contact w/a female, he needs to confirm proof of age.

Pahleeeeese! I meet a girl. She says she's 18, looks about that old, what am I supposed to do? 'Before I ask you out, lemme see some ID'?! Personally, I always err on the side of caution, but it is rather difficult to guage age by appearance or mannerisms.

wring

06-06-2002, 05:34 PM

Yep, I told him that. Of course, that's only 'cause I don't want to see him in jail, like a friend of mine's son who at age 18 had contact w/a girl under the age of consent. YMMV.

Abe User

06-06-2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by wring

OTOH, we routinely bust grocery store clerks, bars for selling to minors, and don't buy the "I thought he/she was of age", "They told me so" defense to that. And, frankly I have no problem with holding sexual contact to at least as high of a standard as "wanna beer with that hotdog?"

BUT, you don't usually go to jail for selling to minors. In NY, they just take your liquor license away, maybe a $$ fine. Most other 'strict liability' crimes -- no jail (at least on first offense). Even if you asked for ID and she gives you her fake ID -- doesn't matter -- 3rd Degree Rape=Class E Felony=1-3 years in tha' State pen. Tough time for a 21 y.o.

Knowledge of the minors age should matter.

tulley

06-06-2002, 05:56 PM

Wring: Have you ever follow your own advice? Seriously. Have you ever encountered an attractive girl that you wanted to pursue, then stopped and asked for her id to ensure she was over 18? I understand your feelings - you don't want your kid to go to jail. But lets try to give the children of the world realistic approaches to sex (i.e. sex in relationships as opposed to flings, safe sex, etc) then unrealistic gibberish. No wonder kids are confused about sex. Look at the advice they are given...

tulley

06-06-2002, 06:11 PM

.... Of course if you are not a man, as I may have erroneously assumed, my semi-rhetorical question doesn't really apply. But my point remains the same. You are never going to see 'checking her id' as a major step in the road to romance...

wring

06-06-2002, 06:12 PM

And, Abe like I said, I don't have a problem treating a sexual situation as more 'important' than selling cigarettes or 'wanna beer w/that'.

Absolutely I think specific knowledge should be dealt w/harsher.

OTOH, WRT 'but she told me she was 18...' Um, to play devils advocate here, if you knew (and you do) that having contact w/an underage person can land your ass in jail (not to mention getting put on sex offender registries etc.), why in the world would you not look for some demonstration of proof?

Hell, I remember when I was first divorced (32), meeting some guy and thinking he was maybe all that & a bag of chips. And he's talking away about stuff, mentions casually that he's about to graduate, and I'm thinkin, ok, so he's like 21 or 22, that's not too bad, then it becomes clear that he was graduating from high school... my jaw dropped. I mean - he was 6'2, and had a mustache. there aughta be a law....

Clues can include - where do they go to school (hint, if they're in school all day from 8 to 3, it ain't likely to be college), do they drive? do they live w/mom & dad? I grant you that not all of these are fail safe, but hell, ask to see a year book...

wring

06-06-2002, 06:18 PM

tulley we cross posted. No, I'm female. No, I didn't ask for ID, but then again way back in the cavemen days when I was young and dating, the laws weren't quite so rigorously dealt with, nor was there a sex offender registry (tho' Michigan's just was pulled down due to a court ruling).

And, I seriously have seen 17, 18 year olds prosecuted for having consensual contact w/a 15 year old. And they have to register.

Meeting at a party - I'd sure as hell try and find some one who knew them. Meeting them in a college class, I'd probably assume they were of age. "can you drive?" buy cigarettes? etc.

I'm saying at this point in the universe, casual sex w/a near stranger has an enormous amount of risk.

Mr. Blue Sky

06-06-2002, 06:27 PM

I am surprised no one's brought up Rob Lowe yet.

tulley

06-06-2002, 06:34 PM

I agree that there is risk. My main point from all of this is that I believe there is too much legal risk from consentual sex. Sex is chancy enough to begin without bringing draconian sex laws to bear. I also think it is a cop out to use the old 'well I did it when I was younger but things were different then' line.

Why are things different now? Why should a 22 year old guy have to tell his neighbors hes a registered sex offender because he had consensual sex with a 16 year old? Why do people freak out when a 15 year old girl sleeps with a 19 year old guy?

The answer usually involves fear, which I don't think is a good attitude when devising a social/legal plan for sexual encounters. I shouldnt need to ask for id. If she seems like a level headed, intelligent girl, who wants to sleep with me, who is around the age of 18, give or take a year or two, why shouldn't I be able to sleep with her?

wring

06-06-2002, 06:54 PM

w/in a year or two of 18, there isn't a problem. W/in a year or two of 16 is.

And I did not use the 'things were different when I was younger' as a cop out - you asked "did you do that?" the answer was, nope, I didn't, why? well, hell, when I was 18, the pill was available, abortions were legal, herpes hadn't come around yet , let alone AIDS, lots of things are different.

What I think should be the law is that if the two people are contemporaries, (w/in 2 years of age), consent should be an issue, and assuming, also that there's not some other specific qualifier (mental disability, emotional illness etc. that may comprimise their ability to legally consent), I don't think there should be registration necessary, but I also don't have a problem w/ the law being involved.

Any line you draw is going to be arbitrary. But, w/o a line somewhere, you'd have no recourse for some nearly 13 year old conning a 10 year old to pull their pants down.

Again, you do have access to all sorts of info about a person (generally) w/o real intrusion. Unless what you want to do is meet some stranger and bed them w/in an hour of meeting, and then, you bet, you should at the very least find out how old they are.

IN generaly living, you'd meet at a party, in class, at work, etc. Other people you know would know them. You'd have time to get to know them, maybe see them a few times, be at a store where they had to show ID to cash a check (clue 15 year olds don't write checks, or have credit cards usually). know if they have a curfew (14 year olds usually do), have to be at school 8 - 3 M-F, live w/parents, have a drivers' license etc.

I do expect my son to be able to have a legitimate reason to believe the person is over 15. and it isn't too much to ask.

Most of the folks that I"ve known who were convicted of it, did know the age of the person involved (or approximately), and in the two cases that didn't, one was a 45 year old who should have figured out that a 45 year old drunken convict isn't really the typical ideal for an 18 year old, and the other was a 20 year old at a party having casual sex w/some one he didn't know at all.

The latter guy, I have a lot of sympathy for his situation, but the bald face truth is, it isn't generally safe (for a number of reasons) to have casual sex w/some one you don't know at all.

Gala Matrix Fire

06-06-2002, 07:05 PM

In 1983 (let's see, 19 years ago), I was kicked out of bed by a 19-yr-old when I told him I was 17. His buddy had been prosecuted for statutory rape, and he wasn't going to risk it. We were both college students living in a dormitory.

So, yes, people who care are going to ask before they dip their wicks.

OxyMoron

06-06-2002, 08:19 PM

I can think of an excellent modern justification for what can seem like an antediluvian law:

We know that teenagers tend to lack judgment. And we know that a certain proportion of teenagers - probably a majority under 17 - will agree to do something to make a good impression on an older person. So they're easily manipulable. Even though other teenagers are perfectly capable of consenting in the full, adult meaning of the term, to protect those who aren't, we place a certain amount of risk squarely on the adult. Remember that if we permitted a consent defense in these cases, the very substantial fear many teenagers have of having their vulnerabilities revealed would prevent all but a few successful prosecutions. (Think, for example, of the young men - I use that term intentionally, since most were not children but teenagers - abused by priests. How many of them do you suppose would come forward to prosecutors and be willing to testify against a defense of consent?)

It can result in a miscarriage of justice, when we prosecute those where the "crime" is truly victimless. But I think those miscarriages are worth the greater justice of protecting the vulnerable.

I do think that's the unpleasant choice: either we fail to prosecute those who are predatory, or prosecute those who aren't. There's no squaring this particular circle. And unless someone's able to produce data indicating a significant number of wrongly prosecuted cases, I'm willing to accept an injustice committed primarily against those those dumb, horny, and old enough to know better.

shrew

06-06-2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Maeglin
In my personal life I am a shocking prude as well. But I am equally shocked that to some, sexual propriety is more important than justice.Please do not assume that I am part of this nebulous some with whom you have a problem. I never stated that sexual propriety was more important than justice. I merely stated that in "Times like these I just want to move to Mayberry, bury my head in the sand, and live happily ever after in the land of blissful ignorance. "

Times like these. Not all the damn time. And not at the price of justice.

Justice is, without doubt, vastly more important.

So I'll thank you kindly to keep your assumptions off me.

Maeglin

06-06-2002, 11:00 PM

So I'll thank you kindly to keep your assumptions off me.

Fair enough. But what I was specifically responding to was manifestly clear from my first post. Namely:

Originally posted by SweetZombieJesus
Perhaps "I thought she was 18" is a weak defence, but to counter it with "You shouldn't be shagging teens anyway" doesn't seem to be in the spirit of justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more reason I should never go into Law.

I called it like I saw it. If I jumped to any conclusions, I humbly withdraw.

Guinastasia

06-06-2002, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Maeglin

In my personal life I am a shocking prude as well. But I am equally shocked that to some, sexual propriety is more important than justice. I don't think I am out of line at all by remarking accordingly. Feel free to wax poetic about a scarlet-lettered golden age, and I will feel free to cast the occasional aspersion.

Not to mention the fact that the so-called "golden age" never really existed.

shrew, you just hit one of my pet peeves.

Why does everyone think that in the past, everyone was sexually responsible and people were NEVER perverted or promiscious?

Dammit!

shrew

06-06-2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Not to mention the fact that the so-called "golden age" never really existed.

shrew, you just hit one of my pet peeves.

Why does everyone think that in the past, everyone was sexually responsible and people were NEVER perverted or promiscious?

Dammit!

So true, Guin, even in Mayberry, Andy had a longtime girlfriend.

Sex is nothing new, promiscuity is nothing new, blah blah blah...

So I suppose I long for something out of a utopian society, a place where responsible sex is valued by all.

Guinastasia

06-06-2002, 11:20 PM

Well, we all do.

I'm just tired of always hearing about "the good ol' days"...which never existed.

Typo Negative

06-07-2002, 02:35 AM

Not true. the 'good ol' days' were when I had hair......

Com2Kid

06-07-2002, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Hamlet

And saying that your hypothetical 17 year old girl "entrapped" the poor, drunk a******* is incredibly offensive. These views you are expressing are typical "blame the victim" crap you see in a lot of these types of cases7

I actualy manage to get out of this one by the following:

If she dresses like a slut, well hell; err, what does she expect to be interpeted as? Seriously, heh. Whore cloths == whore cloths.

The man on the other hand;

premaritial sex? MANWHORE.

Thus, I am debasing both parties equaly.

:p

SweetZombieJesus

06-07-2002, 07:11 AM

I'd just like to clarify that my first post wasn't a shot at Shrew, and I'm not suggesting that Shrew is anti Justice :)

It's pretty hard for young men (I'm 23) these days. I don't pick up random girls at parties or clubs, partly because I'm afraid to. The girls who frequent the clubs 'round here could be anything from 14 and up, and they all look pretty much the same.
There have been times I've been checking someone out who I thought was older only to find out shes 14, and there have been other times when I've dismissed a girl as being too young, went "ew!" only to later discover she's older than me.
If I, or anyone else had casual sex without someone they met at a social gathering of their peers without acertaining their age and is then prosecuted for underage sex, what is the real crime? Is it knowingly "corrupting" or "endangering" a minor, or is the crime engaging in casual/irresponsible sex? Who is the real victim in this situation?

The age of consent here in Ireland is 17, and as far as I know there is no exemption for somebody 2 years older, younger or whatever.
I feel these types of laws are a mockery of what a modern legal system should be. To allow a 19 year old to have sex with a minor because they are "only" 2 years older and to prosecute and add to a list including rapists and pedophiles a 20 year old who has sex with the same minor flies in the face of sense, protects nobody and as a punishment does not fit the crime at all.

Having said all that, I have no idea how to fix any of this...

Icarus

06-07-2002, 08:01 AM

Just to throw another perspective into the ring.....

My mother and father were married, in my grandparents living room, in 1954. At the time my mother was 16 years old and my father was 19. No, my mother was not pregnant at the time.

By all measures applied in this thread so far, my mother was too immature to make decisions for herself, my father was exploiting a youngster and a rapist?

Discuss....:rolleyes:

shrew

06-07-2002, 08:24 AM

In 1960, my 16-year old aunt married her 24-year old boyfriend, and her mother had to be present to sign the license because the judge said my aunt didn't look sixteen. They are still married.

In 1994, the young sister of a friend of mine, who was fifteen, snuck off to the Justice of the Peace, provided a "borrowed" urine sample, claimed to be pregnant, and was then married. She was divorced within six months, but she finished her master's degree in Interior Design last year and managed to study in Italy for two summers.

Maybe the law hasn't changed drastically, and maybe it has, but people have certainly changed. While I certainly don't wish to call your father a rapist, I would definitely claim that your mother was too young (though I can't judge her maturity) to be making decisions about marriage, and yes, quite possibly, your father was exploiting a youngster. Sit down and ask your father whether he thinks your mother was old enough to be married. And then ask whether he would have allowed you, at sixteen, to marry someone nineteen or older. As I stated in another thread, age gives us perspective that youth lacks. We don't want our daughters and sons getting married at such young ages, or having sex at such young ages.

I have no desire to repeat certain common practices of the past simply because they are part of our heritage. If I have anything to say about it, my children will not marry at 16, nor will they have sex under the age of 18. But of course, as many parents can testify, I may not have anything to say about it.

Left Hand of Dorkness

06-07-2002, 09:00 AM

My first girlfriend, when I was 18 (she was 16) left me for an older woman, a 22-year-old college student. It broke my heart, but the older woman was much better for her than i was, and the two of them stayed together for five or six years.

My brother, when he was 15, got semi-involved with a 21-year-old friend of mine. The two of them fooled around with one another for a year or so before drifting apart.

I really think it cheapens the word "rapist" to use it to describe my friend or the 22-year-old college student. And I'm not interested in cheapening that word.

Daniel

Sublime54465

06-07-2002, 10:31 AM

"Maybe if casual sex were less socially accepted..."

Or maybe you have it backwards.... ever read Brave New World? If sex were MORE accepted, rather than less, we wouldn’t worry about it. Why shouldn’t it be accepted? Don’t use the social taboo card...I mean, in all honesty, is there any reason why it is so hush hush? Why is it morally wrong? The only reason I see is that people say it is. We wouldn’t have to worry about this if sex was more openly accepted...just a thought.
(No that does not apply to older people, like 20-30 or 40, taking advantage of little kids who don’t know any better, it applies to people who know what they're doing.)

O and by the way, rape laws, at least in Massachusetts, are WAY to strict. Definition: Intrusion of a bodily orifice (be it oral, anal, vaginal, aural, etc....) by a foreign object (finger, penis, tongue, bottle, dildo.... etc) without legal consent.
Legal consent cannot be given if you are under 18.
Therefore, putting anything other than your one of your own body parts in your mouth, if you are under 18, is illegal.
Food, or a fork, or a spoon, is a foreign object.
Mouth is a bodily orifice.
No legal consent under 18.
A minor is not allowed to eat, legally, in Massachusetts.

Bring this out further...
A kiss is rape, if one of the parties is under 18.
Tongue=Foreign object
Mouth=Orifice
Legal Consent=Not there, if under 18.
HOWEVER, a hand job IS legal.
No orifice is intruded, and is therefore not rape.

I guess what I'm saying is two things: if sex were more accepted we wouldn’t need to worry about this and yes, it is a time for a change in rape laws.

-j

"Religion is based on the fear of the many, and the cleverness of the few..."

SuaSponte

06-07-2002, 10:56 AM

OxyMoron - I agree with your reasoning concerning consent issues, but what's your feeling on strict liability?

Sua

wring

06-07-2002, 11:20 AM

Sublime I"d appreciate a link to the law you're referring to. The laws I've seen all specify something to the effect of 'for purposes of sexual gratification', since for example, a medical practitioner would have legitimate cause to insert things various places.

and, re: the hand job, again, the laws I've personally read mention contact of sexual organs, so the hand job would also be illegal.

OxyMoron

06-07-2002, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
OxyMoron - I agree with your reasoning concerning consent issues, but what's your feeling on strict liability?

Sua Pretty much summarized here: Originally posted by OxyMoron And unless someone's able to produce data indicating a significant number of wrongly prosecuted cases, I'm willing to accept an injustice committed primarily against those those dumb, horny, and old enough to know better. To me, you can't separate the consent from the strict liability - one is the mirror image of the other.

shrew

06-07-2002, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Sublime54465
"Maybe if casual sex were less socially accepted..."

Or maybe you have it backwards.... ever read Brave New World? If sex were MORE accepted, rather than less, we wouldn’t worry about it. Why shouldn’t it be accepted? Don’t use the social taboo card...I mean, in all honesty, is there any reason why it is so hush hush? Why is it morally wrong? The only reason I see is that people say it is. We wouldn’t have to worry about this if sex was more openly accepted...just a thought.

I've read Huxley, and I can see your reasoning, but I disagree.

In the grander schemes of life purpose and the evolution of our species, I simply don't see that casual sex improves us spiritually, emotionally, physically, or philosophically. Spiritually and philosophically, I feel that it robs us of a deeper existence; the purpose in our lives becomes clouded by meaningless acts with meaningless people...creating webs of false feelings and confused empty connections with people who mean nothing to us. Sex can create a new level of meaning in our lives when attained through pure intimacy, but I can't fathom how casual sex can do likewise. If it can, please tell me how.

Emotionally, I weep for my students who shamefacedly tell me, "I don't have no daddy," or "My mama don't know who my daddy is," or "That not my daddy. He just some guy my mama sleeping with." I realize I'm coming at that from my own Judeo-Christian bias, but I feel the children are robbed of an intimacy they could have had, which then puts many of them on a path searching for someone to love them. So many of them are emotionally scarred, and I don't know how to help them besides loving them, but then I leave, and that hurts them too.

Physically, the propagation of our species through casual sex leaves me with a feeling of disgust for our gene pool. How can we find an identity as a people, or even competently predict hereditary ailments, if we lack any knowledge of our parents or forefathers? This yearning for knowledge is tolerated, even expected, out of adopted children, but we seem not to expect it from children of "random" parents. I realize who our parents are is completely arbitrary, but it doesn't have to be THAT arbitrary.

I'm sure my argument has a million holes, so please feel free to help me think this through to a better conclusion if need be.

Mr2001

06-07-2002, 03:31 PM

The way I see it, a single wrongly prosecuted case is one too many. Everyone matures at a different rate, and if two people consent to sex, the state shouldn't step in and say "you belong to a group which we think is unable to make decisions, so yes means no until you are exactly N days old."

There was a front-page story in a local paper (the Inlander if you're near Spokane) entitled "Felonious Love". A couple met over the Internet and hit it off quite well. The 20-year-old man didn't learn that the girl was 13 until later, but he decided to buy her a plane ticket to meet him anyway. To make a long story short, nothing nonconsensual ever happened, the girl's parents were shocked but not angry, and in fact they are now happily married - but the FBI got involved and now he has to register as a sex offender.

The FBI! Shouldn't they be chasing terrorists instead of tearing young lovers apart?

If the "victim" doesn't want to press charges, why does the state go ahead and do it for her? What's next: after a schoolyard fight, both participants shake hands and are buddies again, but the cops haul them off to jail saying "you're not old enough to understand the emotional consequences of fighting or to decide whether you want to make a criminal accusation, so we're charging both of you with assault"?

tulley

06-07-2002, 03:47 PM

I don't see sex (casual or no) as improving, eroding, or in any way controling us, 'spiritually, emotionally, physically, philosophically' or otherwise. Sex is sex, people attach different things to it depending on the people involved.

I weep for the fatherless kids too. I weep for every child not born to the wonderful 2-parent 2-car garage suburban low crime sterilized candy land existance (sorta). Thats why I think we (Americans, that is) need to adopt a more realistic policy for teaching people about sex. It should be less of a legal issue and more of a social issue.

Unfortunately we have so many prudes in America who would rather bury their heads in the sand than talk openly and honestly about sex.

zen101

06-07-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by bup
Is statutory rape strict liability? At the very least, wouldn't that vary by state?

I seem to recall that one reason Rob Lowe wasn't prosecuted for the sex tape in Georgia was because he met the 16 year old girl in a bar, where he'd have a reasonable expectation she was of age.

I was going to mention this as well. In my own state of Oregon this same rule of thumb depends very much on the jurisdiction where it occurs and who the prosecutor is.

I do recall one case where a girl has obtained fake ID and was in a bar and the man she had sex with was still charged, but this was later overturned at the state supreme court on the grounds that a previous verdict had set precident to the contrary and the state did not feel the original verdict was in error.

On the comments of those who say that "he should have gotten to know her better.", legislating your own morality is what that is called. It has no bearing on legal aspects of the case, but may sway a jury admittedly. Chicago is a heavily Roman Catholic city and there may be a strong Catholic presence on the jury, but that does not mean that imposing your morals on an individual is right, even if it is popular.

Personally from what I know of this case and the two others pending in civil court as well as Mr. Kelly's own history it seems likely that he is a suspicious charachter. He married the late Alyia (probably spelled that wrong), when she was 15 (later anulled), he has settled similar cases in the past and seems to be in the midst of doing so agin in two cases right now and the sister or cousin (can't remember which right now) of this girl was a "discovery" of Kelly's who set her young (13y/o) cousin up with Kelly because she knew he liked young girls and to assist her career (she should also be charged with something. Pandering maybe.). This was to help her career by ingratiating herself to Mr.Kelly. Pretty stinky business all in all.

On the young girl's family, they do not want to charge Kelly, but it may be a pay day situation in that home and the cousin/sister who came foreward was dropped prior to her doing so. If he is guilty then everyone involved (with the possible exception of the young girl) should go to jail for being scumbags. The parents for willingness to cover this crap up and for allowing a 13 yo girl out in adult situations without a parent or guardian, the cousin/sister for passing off the young girl to assist her own career, and of course Kelly for being a fuzz-buster. Out of them all he seems like the least scumbag of them all, while still being a complete shitstain.

Cervaise

06-07-2002, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by shrew
So true, Guin, even in Mayberry, Andy had a longtime girlfriend.Psssst! Mayberry isn't real.

Maeglin

06-07-2002, 04:07 PM

shrew,

I think it would be helpful if you elaborated a bit on the following:

In the grander schemes of life purpose and the evolution of our species, I simply don't see that casual sex improves us spiritually, emotionally, physically, or philosophically.

This is the same kind of teleological argument that has justified all sorts of social evil in the past. I certainly don't mean any offense when I say this. But the moment someone invokes "the purpose of the human race," well, I begin to get a little uncomfortable.

Exactly what purpose is this? Evolution is a random, haphazard thing that results in divergence just as often, if not more often, than convergence. How does a biological model support the idea of a common purpose of humanity?

For what it's worth, I agree with everything you said personally. I find a life filled with casual sex to be anathema to my own spiritual makeup. However, it is a tremendous leap to assume that my purpose is that of the entire human race. Especially since procreation appears to be a biological imperative, to say the least.

wring

06-07-2002, 04:10 PM

while it's true each person matures individually, the state requires attaining certain chronological levels for a wide variety of tasks/responsabilities/ other issues . "mandatory school til 16, can't drive, drink, vote, sign contracts etc.

and yet, you think it's feasible for us to somehow come up with a manner to determine sufficient emotional maturity to consent for sex?

I've met the man who said that the sexual contact he had with his 10 year old daughter was consensual. and that was 10 years after the fact.

and since he aint the only one, I've got less than zero problem weighing the issue of needing to protect his daughter, vs. allowing y'all the freedom from having to insure that you're not committing a crime.

So, in short - I see no reason not to have a specific line.
and best advice to anyone is that to insure you're not committing a crime, make sure that person you're boinking is over the line.

RE: folks who've been 'tricked' etc. IMHO, let the court sort it out. In some cases (false ID, person slightly underage), were I on the jury, I'd let it slide. However, again, if you merely go w/the 'she told me she was 16' or 'showed me ID', what's to protect the 5 year old when the perp makes the above claims ('gee, ossifer, how was I supposed to know that valid ID's aren't done in crayon?')

with rights come responsabilities. You may have a right to have consensual relations w/a willing partner, but you have the corresponding responsability to insure that said partner has the ability to consent.

tulley

06-07-2002, 05:04 PM

while it's true each person matures individually, the state requires attaining certain chronological levels for a wide variety of tasks/responsabilities/ other issues . "mandatory school til 16, can't drive, drink, vote, sign contracts etc.There's a huge difference between these things and sex, not the least of which is that sex is an inherant biological act while the rest of these exist solely within a social construct.

and yet, you think it's feasible for us to somehow come up with a manner to determine sufficient emotional maturity to consent for sex?Yes I do, as long as there is a reasonable framework to establish suitable and unsuitable contexts for sex. It really isn't that hard to talk about sex, and to talk to other people about sex. A little more awareness could go a long way in empowering people to make the right decisions for themselves, rather than trying to pass a Titanic-sized buck to our legal system. Making a social/legal policy based on knee-jerk reactions and fearmongering ('if we don't draw a line somewhere, daddys are going to rape their 10 year old daughters') does not help IMHO.

wring

06-07-2002, 05:27 PM

of course there's differences between drinking, driving etc and sex. But I disagree w/you as to where to place the importance factor.

In addition to sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancies, and other physical issues, there's an emotional issue as well with sex. And, since we already diminish the ability of a younger person to participate in activities where their physical being is the primary issue, why would we relegate to a lesser standard one in which not only the physical but the emotional well being is also involved?

Prior to last month, my son was not legally allowed to decide where he lived, who his doctor was, make certain kinds of purchases, work certain hours etc. Why in the world would we allow some one even younger to make potentially life altering decisions on their own?

wring

06-07-2002, 05:35 PM

and exactly where would you draw the line,pray tell, because you know, that some daddys do indeed rape their 10 year old daughters.

and I'd much rather make sure that we protect the young and vulnerable than worry too much about the rare instance where a 14 year old is 'very mature' etc.

To make the 14 year old wait 2 years/and or hold you responsible for knowing absolutely that the person you're about to bed is able to consent is a very small price to pay for the bonus of being able to protect those who are not 'very mature for their 10 years'.

tulley

06-07-2002, 06:02 PM

I don't think I'm going to buy this analogy to voting, driving, etc. Sex is a fundamental part of humanity, and should be handled differently than these other things. I'm also not completely sold on the way the US handles these other things, too (You can vote at 18 but drink at 21?), so its gonna take more than that to convince me. Frankly I find a lot of these blanket age requirements more of a "well, that sounds about right I guess" kind of legislation rather than sound, well thought out policies.

As for where the line gets drawn, well, I would definatly hesitate before making some blanket age restriction. Why does there have to be a line, anyways? For example:

Daddy rapes 10 yr. old - crime
19 yr old and 15 yr old hook up at a party - no crime

There doesn't need to be some law saying NO SEX WITH A 10 YEAR OLD to make these judgments. Whats wrong with handling it on a case by case basis?

ps
just wanted to say thanks, wring, for giving me a crack at my first SDMB debate :D

wring

06-07-2002, 06:36 PM

"what's wrong with handling it on a case by case basis?'

well, our courts are already clogged up as it is, and when you end up on the wrong end of the 'but I thought it was ok' equation, you'd not feel so good about it.

I agree that there needs to be some distinction when the two parties are contemporaries - a problem in my state for example-(the 2 year difference for example), but other than that, I have no problem w/there being a line, absolute.

But I am very leery of getting beyond that couple of years standard. Excuses I've heard from molesters included, of course the 'it was consensual', and 'it wasn't so bad, since her grandfather had already done it' and 'I'd like to point out that it was only digital penetration'.

it's much easier for an older person to convince a younger person to do things, go places etc, and once there, not know how to get out of a situation. Issues become clouded etc.

and, again, I'm not seeing what the big sacrifice is for the older person. Insure the person is conscious, able to legally consent, and does consent. If they're smart, they'd also get some idea of the sexual history etc (so if you're asking some one's HIV status, what's the problem in checking the age while you're at it. "oh no, that's too personal?")

When I buy something, and it turns out to be stolen, I can get nailed for possession of stolen property. So, when the guy turns up at your door w/a big screen TV for 10$, you're best bet is to verifiy it's his or not buy it. I see it as the same thing.

adults are held responsible for their actions.

Minors less so.

minty green

06-07-2002, 06:37 PM

The problem with making it a case-by-case judgment is that it gives no reasonable notice of what is a crime and what isn't.

tulley

06-07-2002, 07:01 PM

You're right, wring. The laws themselves aren't a huge problem, and I'm certainly not on some crusade to abolish them.

I just think if we had an open, realistic dialog in our society about sex - yes even with young kids - it would help a lot more than blindly applying some arbitrary age restriction, in terms of reducing undesirable sexual transgressions. Yet nobody seems to want to approach the former, whereas people have very strong (and vocal ;)) reactions to the latter.

As for the case-by-case thing, IANAL, but isn't precedent commenly used by judges? How is this any different?

tulley

06-07-2002, 07:12 PM

Thats supposed to (ultimately) read '... dialog, with young kids, about sex...'

not

'... dialog about sex with young kids...'

:D

carry on

wring

06-07-2002, 07:35 PM

I'm not at all against having dialogs with kids about sex. I'm a mom ya know. And I recall vividly the day my son decided he was old enough to know. So I told him. "oh, gross mom, ewwww, gross." pause. "do you think my dad does that?" :D

anyhow. and I also agree that our society is more than a bit odd about sex. But the answer, to me, isn't to lower the bar and decide that 'well, some kids are more mature than others, so we'll just drop the age of consent down to 12' or even 'children are sexual beings, therefore their experimentation w/sex is perfectly fine and who better to explain it to them, than that kindly neighbor over there'.

When you're dealing with very young children (under 10) and they experiment, it used to be called 'playing doctor'. now it's called CSC in the 2nd degree or some such. I think in those kinds of cases, somebody aught to be checking out the kids themselves to see if there's history and so on, and so I wouldn't be adverse to having some official intervention there, but I wouldn't want them to be held til they're adults and have to register as a molester.

I've already said the contemporaries in the early teens should be handled differently too.

However, I'd still be very concerned about a generality of 'ok' attached to people more than a couple years older having relations even w/post pubescents. With the difference in ages, there's too much potential IMHO and IME, for the nature of the consent to be totally voluntary. Much as I also believe that a prisoner cannot consent to relations w/the guard that's guarding them. the potential for easy abuse is too strong, and I don't consider it a large hardship to require the occasional exception to wait a while until the situation is on a more equitable basis.

robertliguori

06-07-2002, 08:10 PM

Hmm. We do have a mandatory public education system. How about somewhere early along the line, explaining to kids that "If someone does X/Y/Z to/with you, and you want them to stop, head over to the nearest police station and report them for rape."
Thought experiment: why is child molestation illegal? Potential for authoritarian rape? Rape is already illegal. Kids can't handle it? They are handling it. Meet some minors, sometime. It seems to me that child molestation is illegal primarily because it is universally considered distasteful, except in Japan.
P.S. If we do have a blanket age restriction, it should be a few years lower for girls, being as they hit puberty earlier than us menfolk. That is, if the law is attempting to be just, and not simply a pedantic (hah) excersize in public morality dictating law.

mswas

06-07-2002, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by shrew
I never thought I'd pine for the days of Puritanism, but oh how I do. Times like these I just want to move to Mayberry, bury my head in the sand, and live happily ever after in the land of blissful ignorance.

More weight...

mswas

06-07-2002, 08:37 PM

Thanks to people like a lot of you posting in this thread, I can't ever hook up with that hot 35 year old in the bar, because up until about a year ago when I finally had to start shaving every other day, I looked like I was about 14 or 15, and guess what? I'm ten years older than that I'm 24 and 6/12ths. When I met my wife who actually is a couple months YOUNGER than me, she carded me, her friend asked her about it, she said she saw my ID and her friend's response was, "The same ID he used to get in with?" (we met in a club) So basically, the average lay person has no way to really tell what age they are, or should we at 18 be subjected to classes that will teach us how to spot a fake ID? Because you can buy a fake ID on just about any corner in Times Square. I've seen some damn good ones, even damn good ones of a NY ID which is really fucking hard to fake. I think most of the lines of reasoning in this thread have been absolutely ludicrous. If the girl is out being a sexual predator, how can you possibly expect someone to know that they are of age? What about me who a few years ago you would have taken 8 years right off of my age upon bumping into me?

Anyway, I just thought I'd present a completely seperate perspective on this issue. A few posters have hit it on the nose, and I pretty much agree with the OP on this one.

And I gotta give props to Maeglin for his posts, I am so sick of hearing about these golden ages, because usually they were during some really awful period of time where people were persecuted for really dumb reasons like whether they had black skin, or black nipples.

Erek

Mr2001

06-07-2002, 09:09 PM

I don't see the big deal about letting minors consent to sex. I remember being 13 and knowing which things I wanted and which I didn't. Even at 9 years old, I held meaningful opinions about things that were happening to me: "Where would you rather go to dinner?" "Where would you rather go to school?" "We think you should have braces to straighten your teeth, how do you feel about that?"

I knew what sex was, and I knew what physical discomfort was. If someone was physically doing something to me that I didn't like, I would have realized it immediately. And so would every one of my peers.

Problem: A 20-year-old man has sex with a 13-year-old girl. Was it consensual?
Solution: Let the girl know that her answer is entirely private and that no harm will come to her from answering or testifying in court. Then ask her if the sex was consensual. If she says yes, don't waste any more taxpayer money on the case.

Oh, but you suspect the man may have threatened her to keep quiet. So handle it exactly like any other case of suspected threats toward witnesses, don't just assume that it happened because you don't trust minors.

Nightime

06-07-2002, 11:58 PM

Age of Consent laws are not in place in order to punish people who aren't psychic and can't magically know someone's age. They are in place to protect people that as a society we believe are in danger of being tricked or forced into doing something they aren't ready for and can not really consent to. The law is often unfair, but I can't think of any better way to protect those who need protection. Honestly, I think age consent laws have protected so many people that their benefits outweigh their costs. If it was a case to case thing, there wouldn't really be protection, because a bad person would always think they could get away with it.

Having said that, the age of consent is too high, girls especially mature faster than ever, and we as a society are far too obsessed with, and scared of, sex. I think the reason kids are becoming more sexualized is, quite simply, that we are TELLING them that they are sexual! If you tell a kid that adults all want to have sex with them, and thats a bad thing (yeah, telling them its bad will make them not do it) and then you provide them with sexy attire, what exactly do you expect them to do? The age of consent should be lowered to 16, and we should stop sexualizing kids by making such a huge deal over certain pop stars. We make things abnormal by acting as though they are. Newsflash: Kids like attention. If you give attention to kids that act sexy... well, connect the dots.

shrew

06-08-2002, 01:16 AM

by Maeglin:
But the moment someone invokes "the purpose of the human race," well, I begin to get a little uncomfortable...However, it is a tremendous leap to assume that my purpose is that of the entire human race.
Good point. Since there is no collective purpose, or at least not one we can all agree on, I am working from what I see as a possible purpose. I was speaking from my own perspective, and projecting that onto how I see the world. Strictly IMHO, of course. After all, what other perspective do I have?

by tulley:
I weep for the fatherless kids too. I weep for every child not born to the wonderful 2-parent 2-car garage suburban low crime sterilized candy land existance (sorta). Thats why I think we (Americans, that is) need to adopt a more realistic policy for teaching people about sex. It should be less of a legal issue and more of a social issue. I don't expect or want teenagers to live in Candyland. I just would rather they didn't live in brothels. And I'll be honest with you. I have a freshman whose mother runs an honest-to-God whorehouse. Now how is that good for him?

Unfortunately we have so many prudes in America who would rather bury their heads in the sand than talk openly and honestly about sex.
I talk with teenagers about sex every damn day of the school year. And no, I don't "talk at" them or lecture them. I discuss sex with them. But to be honest, after a while I just want to shake them and scream, "JUST WAIT A FEW MORE YEARS, DAMMIT!"

by robertliguori:
If we do have a blanket age restriction, it should be a few years lower for girls, being as they hit puberty earlier than us menfolk. Well, sure, 'cause if they're crawling, they're in the right position.

mswas, you absolutely whooshed me with the "More weight" comment. I'm sure it's not complimentary, but I'm afraid your meaning has eluded me.

by mr2001:
Oh, but you suspect the man may have threatened her to keep quiet. So handle it exactly like any other case of suspected threats toward witnesses, don't just assume that it happened because you don't trust minors.It's not that we don't trust minors. We're trying to PROTECT them when they possibly can't protect themselves. I seem to remember a thread on this board once where the question was posited, "If you could go back in time and meet anyone, who would you meet?" I said my grandfather. I would wait until my father and all my aunts were born, and then I would stick a knife in my grandfather's throat. I would do that, not because I don't trust my father, and not because I think sex is dirty, but because little children don't deserve to be raped. Of course, I can't go back in time, and I can't execute vigilantism in my father's name, but by God, I can try to protect children the only way we seem to be able, and that is by having laws that restrict child molestation.

I do see consensual sex with teenagers as rape. I simply do. Like you, mr2001, I knew what sex was at a young age, and I was mature enough to make my own decisions, but in my experience teens like us aren't the norm. We have to protect all in order to protect the vulnerable.

Nightime

06-08-2002, 01:42 AM

I do see consensual sex with teenagers as rape. I simply do. Like you, mr2001, I knew what sex was at a young age, and I was mature enough to make my own decisions, but in my experience teens like us aren't the norm. We have to protect all in order to protect the vulnerable.

Consensual sex with teenagers should not be called rape. Seriously, I am amazed that anyone would devalue the term rape by applying it to genuinely consensual sex. There is consensual sex between teenage girls and much older men on TV (BTVS, for example) and there is not even an outcry because it is obviously consensual.

There are so many people who say the same thing as you. "Well, I was mature enough, but almost nobody else is." The fact is people do mature before 18. Throughout history people have matured before 18. And physically people mature faster now than ever before!

If anything, our society tries to keep our young adults acting like kids, when they are physically not kids anymore, and this is predictably causing problems.

BlackKnight

06-08-2002, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by shrew
mswas, you absolutely whooshed me with the "More weight" comment. I'm sure it's not complimentary, but I'm afraid your meaning has eluded me.

I think I can help out here. I believe the "more weight" comment was a line from "The Crucible". An elderly man is being pressed to death with rocks and when his torturers tell him to confess, he instead tells them "more weight". The point, I believe, was to highlight that the days of Puritanism you mentioned contained some horrible atrocities and therefore should not be pined for.

SweetZombieJesus

06-08-2002, 07:56 AM

Consent laws do not protect everyone. They don't protect the 18 year old who sleeps with a 15 year old. But I suppose that for every 18 year old who sleeps with someone a couple of grades below them in highschool and gets jailed, there are countless 10 year olds who are protected from being raped courtesy of the law. So I guess its ok that the 18 year old's freedom is forfiet?

shrew

06-08-2002, 11:17 AM

There are so many people who say the same thing as you. "Well, I was mature enough, but almost nobody else is." The fact is people do mature before 18. Throughout history people have matured before 18. And physically people mature faster now than ever before! You want to know how I know I was mature enough? I knew that sex at that age was stupid, so I waited. I was in a healthy, responsible relationship at the age of 16, but he and I both knew we weren't ready. In my eyes, that's a mature decision. You seem to be using the word "mature" to mean "physically mature". Most teenagers are physically mature before the age of 15, which by the way is the consensual age here in Georgia, but that doesn't mean they are emotionally mature. For example, I have a fourteen year old student who is physically mature. He is 6'1", 160 pounds, and very attractive. The girls follow him around like little puppy dogs. Two nights ago, after a summer ball game, his mother told him he couldn't go somewhere (with good reason), so he stomped off, got in the car, slammed the door, and pouted for twenty minutes. He may have the body of a man, but he is still a child.

And by the way, if you're referring to Buffy and Angel, I don't think that applies well here. I think people would probably get their feathers in a ruffle over Angel being a vamp more than him being 500+ years old. Besides, Buffy was sixteen. And in my state at least, perfectly legal.

Blackknight, thanks for clearing up that rather obscure reference.

by sweetzombiejesus:
So I guess its ok that the 18 year old's freedom is forfiet?
If the eighteen year old can prove himself innocent, he has nothing to worry about. And yes, I think it's worth it.

I look at it this way: There are tons of people who can hold their liquor and drive at the same time. But then there are those who can't. To protect the average citizen on the road, we make it illegal for ALL people to drive under the influence of alcohol. Occasionally the law does harm people who we think should "get away with it", but that's the price we pay to keep as many drunks off the road as possible.

To protect the average teenager/child, we make it illegal to have sex with them all. This protects them from predators of all varieties.

SweetZombieJesus

06-08-2002, 12:35 PM

I've seen the drink driving analogy used quite a few times in debates about sex.

It never becomes legal to drive drunk no matter how old you get, and the consent issue makes sex laws very different than anything else.

Something else to think about:

Lets say two 18 year guys pick up 2 girls at a bar. The girls look about the same age and neither cares about which guy out of the 2 they end up with. The guys don't care either. The two couples have sex that night. It turns out that one of the girls was 15 and the other was 18. The guy that slept with the 15 year old is in big trouble, the other guy isn't.

Was the 15 year old raped? Should the 18 year old who slept with her be punished? If so, is he being punished to set an example? Is he being punished because he might become a serial bedder of underage girls? Does he need rehabilitation?

Perhaps he should have asked for ID. Perhaps he should have got to know the girl over the course of a few weeks before deciding to have sex. Is reckless idiocy his crime because he did not make absolutely sure she was of age?

If so, should his friend also be punished for engaging in the same reckless behaviour?

shrew

06-08-2002, 03:19 PM

Hm, good question, sweetzombiejesus. The boy in this situation has a legitimate case in stating the expectation of age of consent since they were in a bar. The boys have a responsibility to determine the age of their "dates", and they failed to do so. Being in a bar, they foolishly assumed they were on safe ground. The girl and her friend are just as guilty as the boys, moreso even since they entrapped one of the boys, but the boys failed to follow through with the responsibilities of casual sex (strictly a moral judgment on my part, obviously not legal grounds). So if it were up to me, I would dole out similar punishments to them all.

Thank God it'll never be up to me, eh.

Dangerosa

06-08-2002, 04:59 PM

Two different scenarios -

Man picks up woman in bar. Has one night stand. Girl turns out to be underaged. I have a problem with this, but not a huge problem. He can reasonably expect the girl to be 21 in most bars in the US. Although I personally never really went in for casual sex, I don't have problems with other adults who engage in it. If she looked like an adult and acted like an adult, it sure is icky when (if) he finds out she's 15, but I'm having a hard time getting too worked up about it.

Man meets girl, starts relationship. Relationship being defined as something other than casual sex. Now I have a big problem with the sex, since he should know how old she is (I don't think its too hard to figure out if she can't get into rated R movies) and caring about her should put a kabosh on any sexual contact.

I was sixteen when I started dating a guy in his twenties. I thought for the longest time we were "just friends" 'cause that's how he treated me right up until I turned 18.

I have less of a problem with casual sex - yes it can change your life, even kill you, but so can lots of other dumb things we do when we are teenagers. I have a bigger problem with teenagers dating people much older (even a little older) because it's so hard to find yourself when you are that age - and what you should be doing is molding yourself into a person (surrounded by people also turning themselves into adults). I've seen more young women (and yes, mostly young women) screwed up by having relationships with older men than just having sex with older men.

(The videotape thing puts this in a whole different realm, though).

mswas

06-08-2002, 05:18 PM

BlackKnight nailed it.

Erek

Nightime

06-08-2002, 05:45 PM

Besides, Buffy was sixteen. And in my state at least, perfectly legal.

I already said that I thought age consent laws were more helpful than harmful, but that they should be lowered to age 16. People do physically mature must faster than ever before, and if you think the teens you know are not mentally mature enough, perhaps you should ask yourself why. Could it be that your hysterical overprotection of teenagers, combined with a media that is geared towards teenagers being sexy, is confusing and sending mixed messages to teens? Maybe if society was less hysterical and gave more responsibility to teens, and treated them less like stupid sexy kids, you would be more satisfied with their maturity levels?

Qadgop the Mercotan

06-08-2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by shrew
If the eighteen year old can prove himself innocent, he has nothing to worry about.
Um, I thought that in the US, the default assumption was innocent until proven guilty.

Mr2001

06-08-2002, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by shrew
It's not that we don't trust minors. We're trying to PROTECT them when they possibly can't protect themselves.
In that case, why stop at 16? There are 18, 21, and 30 year olds who can't protect themselves from rapists.

I do see consensual sex with teenagers as rape. I simply do. Like you, mr2001, I knew what sex was at a young age, and I was mature enough to make my own decisions, but in my experience teens like us aren't the norm. We have to protect all in order to protect the vulnerable.
That's an unfortunate and confusing definition that not many people share. "Rape" has one definition in my mind: sex acts against the will of one or more participants. And that will is there whether or not they've reached some arbitrary age, our laws just choose to ignore it before then.

I simply cannot believe that most (or even many) minors are unable to tell the difference between "yes, I like that" and "no, please stop". In fact, my experience has shown that teenagers are very unlikely to put up with things they don't like.

Assuming there are teenagers without the ability to give consent, it should be possible to tell on an individual basis. "But it'll clog up our courts!" say the critics. Well, tough. Justice takes resources, and I'm willing to spend a little more on the courts if it means keeping innocent people out of jail.

If you were accused of a crime, would you like to be denied a fair trial simply because it's cheaper and quicker to ignore the facts?

elucidator

06-08-2002, 09:51 PM

I got to think this is one of the grayest of the gray areas.

For instance, if I react strictly from my own feelings and prejudices, an "older" man "seducing" a teen-ager is committing an unsavory act, if not a prosecutable act.

On the other hand, a 16 year old boy who has sex with a 22 year old woman just plain got lucky.

I can perfectly understand how one might think this attitude irrational.

shrew

06-09-2002, 02:05 AM

by Nightime:
Could it be that your hysterical overprotection of teenagers, combined with a media that is geared towards teenagers being sexy, is confusing and sending mixed messages to teens?
Hysterical? It's not as if I'm staging StraightEdge parties in my home. I don't picket the local health department with signs that say, "Keep your condoms off my kids." I don't tell teens that abstinence is the "only true way" to prevent birth control (though it is). I don't even advise the kids that waiting is in their best interest. When asked, I give them the "Every person has to decide when is best for him/her" speech. What I think in theory (what I present here) and what I practice in daily life with teens aren't necessarily the same thing. I think in the abstract, but I live in the reality.

And if you think I'm hysterical, you should meet the conservatives around here. I'm actually a leftwing hippie nutjob compared to them.

Maybe if society was less hysterical and gave more responsibility to teens, and treated them less like stupid sexy kids, you would be more satisfied with their maturity levels?
Maybe if media weren't geared toward teenagers' sexuality, my expectations wouldn't seem so hysterical.

by mr2001:
If you were accused of a crime, would you like to be denied a fair trial simply because it's cheaper and quicker to ignore the facts?Of course not. I'm not suggesting anyone should be denied a trial. But am I willing to deny a 19 year-old boy the right to have "consensual" sex with a 13 year-old? You betcha.

Of course, Qadgop, allow me to rephrase. If the boy truly is innocent, and the prosecuting attorney therefore fails to make a case against him, and the boy is acquitted of all charges, then he has nothing to worry about.

Lamia

06-09-2002, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Mr2001

I simply cannot believe that most (or even many) minors are unable to tell the difference between "yes, I like that" and "no, please stop". In fact, my experience has shown that teenagers are very unlikely to put up with things they don't like.

The question is not whether they like it, but whether they are capable of making a rational, informed decision about what they are doing. Plenty of minors would like to spend the day experimenting with the contents of mom and dad's liquor cabinet instead of going to school; that doesn't mean they should be encouraged to do it, or that it should even be made legal.

A very dear friend of mine lost her virginity at a young age to a man who was more than twice her age. He knew perfectly well how old she was, because he was a supervisor at an after-school activity program she attended. She agreed to have sex with him was because he was the first person who ever treated her like a "grown-up" and she wanted to please him and prove that she really was a grown-up. She was twelve. Twelve. She was not in any way unconsenting, but this is as clear a case of statuatory rape as one could hope to find. The law unfortunately did not protect my friend, but there is no argument you or anyone else could make that would convince me that there should not be laws to protect her and other children.

Mr2001

06-09-2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by shrew
Of course not. I'm not suggesting anyone should be denied a trial. But am I willing to deny a 19 year-old boy the right to have "consensual" sex with a 13 year-old? You betcha.
The fact is, some individuals under the arbitrary age are able to give informed consent. Statutory rape laws ignore that fact. Imagine if we ignored important facts in all trials, in the interest of saving money and "protecting" alleged victims....

Prosecuting Attorney: "Your Honor, I intend to show that the defendant broke into my client's house and escaped on foot with a $500 television set."

Defense Attorney: "That's ludicrous. My client lost both legs in a car accident and could not possibly run down the street carrying a television. I'd like to call a medical expert to testify to that."

Judge: "That won't be necessary. Since we're pressed for time, I'll just assume that the defendant is physically capable, like most men his age. Will the prosecution please continue?"

Exactly the same kind of willful ignorance that's written into statutory rape laws.

Mr2001

06-09-2002, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Lamia
She agreed to have sex with him was because he was the first person who ever treated her like a "grown-up" and she wanted to please him and prove that she really was a grown-up. She was twelve. Twelve. She was not in any way unconsenting, but this is as clear a case of statuatory rape as one could hope to find.
If she wasn't unconsenting, how can you justify calling it rape?

I'm sorry about your friend, but we all make mistakes. If I sign a 12-month lease on an apartment, then change my mind in six months, I have to stick around until the lease is up, then think a little harder next time I'm about to sign a lease.

If I have sex with someone because I'm drunk or lonely, then regret it later--I'm assuming your friend regretted having sex with him, otherwise why bring it up?--I don't expect the law to "protect" me. Dealing with my mistakes is my responsibility, not the state's.

RexDart

06-09-2002, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Abe User
I've been reading about the whole R. Kelly indictment:

And it occurs to me that since statutory rape crimes are 'strict liability' (i.e. the older person's knowledge/lack thereof does not affect the criminal charge), how can you hold a man responsible for doing 14-17 y.o girls who look, act and dress like 18-19 y.o. s

These laws were written at a time when girls didn't pretend to be older women, so perhaps its time for a change. Yes, it is difficult to prove that a guy 'knew' she was 17 not 18, but really....but if its ok for companies to sell thongs to 12 y.o., how's a dude to know if he is commiting a crime??

Any thoughts?

Statutory rape is NOT strict liabilty. It just doesn't have a mens rea requirement for the age element of the crime. It still requires some intent level as to the sexual act (i.e. the four Model Penal Code intent levels: knowingly, purposefully, negligently, or recklessly.) Past decisions have seemed to reinforce the idea of "guilty mind." It is presumed that sexual liasons outside marriage are "bad enough" so to speak, so the person committing them has acted with a sufficiently "guilty mind" for criminal culpability to be imposed.

Since it's pretty difficult to commit sexual activity accidentally without being somehow negligent, the mens rea for the sex act is commonly assumed to be present, but it still has to be demonstrated. So it isn't a strict liability crime. Strict liability in criminal law is reserved for activity in which the public has an overriding interest (common example is the labelling of pharmecuticals) such that the person in position to prevent a dangerous outcome is placed at a higher standard than that of simple negligence. (One is not negligent, and therefore not criminally culpable, if one took all *reasonable* precautions to prevent a hazardous outcome....strict liability provides an incentive to take extra measures, even though the cost would outweigh the benefits.) Strict liability crimes are punished by fines, since our court system believes that jail time would be a disproportionate punishment to a person held strictly liable.

In general, a mens rea requirement would be imposed on each material element of a criminal statute. These decisions seem to take the view that the age itself is not a material element, it's the sexual activity that is the element.

Modern courts might tend to be this harsh only in cases where the "victim" (that there's a victim in any form of consensual sex might be debated) is of such a young age that the state's interest in protecting that person overrides the needs of justice to require intent as to the element of the crime regarding age.

Alot of people unfamiliar with the law assume that courts always follow a set of rules drawn from precedent. Quite the opposite, judges prefer to use their own discretion to balance competing interests and construct the precedents in a way such that they support the desired conclusion. Absent a specific statutory clause about mistaken age or a direct mandate from the state's highest court of appeals, the court will probably balance the interests at stake. If the girl is 13, the court will hold the offender culpable in the interest of protecting girls of such tender years. If she's 16, the court might consider the totality of circumstances.

TeaElle

06-09-2002, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001
If she wasn't unconsenting, how can you justify calling it rape?

Because she was a child and a child cannot consent. She wasn't even a teenager. She was a little girl, 12 years old. It was rape in the same way that having sex with a drunk woman is rape. It was rape in the same way that having sex with a mentally challenged or ill woman is rape. She doesn't have the capability to form the requisite intent necessary to consent to anything.

I'm sorry about your friend, but we all make mistakes. If I sign a 12-month lease on an apartment, then change my mind in six months, I have to stick around until the lease is up, then think a little harder next time I'm about to sign a lease.

And if you're a twelve year old child you can't sign a lease. Why? Because, among other things, you aren't old enough to know what all of the ramifications and consequences of signing lease might be. This isn't an adult, with a full compliment of experience, education and rational capabilities with remorse after making a stupid choice. There is a huge difference.

If I have sex with someone because I'm drunk or lonely, then regret it later--I'm assuming your friend regretted having sex with him, otherwise why bring it up?--I don't expect the law to "protect" me. Dealing with my mistakes is my responsibility, not the state's.

Dealing with your mistakes is your responsibility because you are an adult. No one who is charged with protecting you. However, parents and society are charged with protecting children, and that is often accomplished with the aid of laws which protect them from adults who would seek to take advantage of their naivete and lack of experience. If you'd like to remove all such protections, and let whomever wants to prey upon children do so, fine, but then i hope that you're prepared to accept the consequences of the broken, devastated young people who will start popping up in obscene numbers thereafter.

Lamia

06-09-2002, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001

If she wasn't unconsenting, how can you justify calling it rape?

The reason why the concept of statuatory rape exists is because there is a difference between consent and informed consent. I can justify calling it statuatory rape -- please note the full term -- because she was a child incapable of giving informed consent.

I'm sorry about your friend, but we all make mistakes. If I sign a 12-month lease on an apartment, then change my mind in six months, I have to stick around until the lease is up, then think a little harder next time I'm about to sign a lease.

This might perhaps be of some relevance if twelve year olds could sign leases. They can't. They are not allowed to and should not be allowed to. They're just children.

If I have sex with someone because I'm drunk or lonely, then regret it later--I'm assuming your friend regretted having sex with him, otherwise why bring it up?--I don't expect the law to "protect" me. Dealing with my mistakes is my responsibility, not the state's.

Protecting children from people who would harm or exploit them is the responsibility of the state. Since this is not the Pit I will restrain myself from detailing exactly what I think of people like you who would leave helpless children to the wolves, but suffice it to say it is very colorful and very unpleasant.

shrew

06-09-2002, 09:47 PM

by mr2001:
The fact is, some individuals under the arbitrary age are able to give informed consent.Cite?

And do you really want to use the same rationale that people like R. Kelly use in his defense? "Aw come on, Judge, she may only be thirteen, but she knew what she wanted." :rolleyes:

Statutory rape laws ignore that fact. Imagine if we ignored important facts in all trials, in the interest of saving money and "protecting" alleged victims.... I would hardly call your opinion a fact that would change the legal system as we know it.

Besides, we protect teenagers from all sorts of things. We don't allow fourteen year olds to drive, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, work, or fight in the armed forces. We protect them from those things). Why shouldn't we protect them from sexual predators preying on their innocence and naivete?

Sublime54465

06-09-2002, 10:07 PM

wring...i have nothing to back that up....that definition is the one i was told by a psychiatrist at my school during a date rape prevention seminar.....your probably right....

and shrew....your right, i can see your side as well. but as you said, i think that point of view comes as a result of your "Judeo-Christian bias"..i am atheist, and i see no spiritual problem with it....this is just my idea, but i can see yours

DSeid

06-10-2002, 12:00 AM

Thongs don't cause pregnancy.

I can se the ad campaign now ... Thongs don't cause pregnancy; penises do. ;)

Mr2001

06-10-2002, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by tlw
She doesn't have the capability to form the requisite intent necessary to consent to anything.
Oh? Do you know her personally, or are you just generalizing based on her age?

If you'd like to remove all such protections, and let whomever wants to prey upon children do so, fine, but then i hope that you're prepared to accept the consequences of the broken, devastated young people who will start popping up in obscene numbers thereafter.
Everything I've said in this thread has revolved around minors who give consent, and whose consent is ignored by the state. "Preying upon children" suggests that the sex was nonconsensual, or that force or fraud was involved. If these "children" have been "preyed upon", why don't they say so?

When I was 17 I had a younger girlfriend, and although our physical relationship was legal in this state, it may not have been legal in neighboring states. Neither of us were harmed, physically or emotionally, and we wouldn't have been harmed if we had been in California instead of Washington.

Originally posted by Lamia
The reason why the concept of statuatory rape exists is because there is a difference between consent and informed consent. I can justify calling it statuatory rape -- please note the full term -- because she was a child incapable of giving informed consent.
I assume that since you knew her personally, you're speaking of her capability to give informed consent as an individual, not simply as a person younger than an arbitrary age. Correct?

In that case, why bother with a needlessly restrictive age limit if you can determine, on an individual basis, who is capable of giving informed consent and who is incapable?

Protecting children from people who would harm or exploit them is the responsibility of the state. Since this is not the Pit I will restrain myself from detailing exactly what I think of people like you who would leave helpless children to the wolves, but suffice it to say it is very colorful and very unpleasant.
I'm all for protecting children from predators. I just don't see how banning legitimate, consensual relationships is a necessary part of that.

Try telling the guy featured in last week's Inlander that he's a "wolf", then try telling his wife that her marriage is a fraud because she's too young or naive to know what she wants. How long will they have to stick together to prove to you that minors are capable of making decisions?

Originally posted by shrew
["The fact is, some individuals under the arbitrary age are able to give informed consent."] Cite?
Are you joking? How about providing a cite for "all teenagers in California under 18 are mentally incapable of giving informed consent", "all teenagers in Washington under 16 are mentally incapable of giving informed consent, unless they are giving such consent to someone less than 48 months older", etc, which is the opposite of my claim?

Since minors are able to marry in many areas, and getting married requires consent, it follows that some minors are able to give such consent.

And do you really want to use the same rationale that people like R. Kelly use in his defense? "Aw come on, Judge, she may only be thirteen, but she knew what she wanted."
I don't know the girl in the R. Kelly case, so I can't say for sure whether or not she did know what she wanted. But I know 13, 15, and 17 year old girls who I would certainly trust to know what they want. I would never assume that a teenager is incapable of making decisions about sex simply based on her age.

So yes, that's basically what I'm saying. I believe there are minors who know exactly what they want, and I am almost religiously opposed to prosecuting any crime when there are no real victims.

Besides, we protect teenagers from all sorts of things. We don't allow fourteen year olds to drive, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, work, or fight in the armed forces. We protect them from those things.
Indeed... and I don't think you'll be surprised to hear that I'm opposed to those restrictions as well.

Why shouldn't we protect them from sexual predators preying on their innocence and naivete?
Again, protecting children from predators is fine, as long as it doesn't make criminals out of innocent people.

There are any number of laws we could pass that would mostly catch 'bad guys', at the expense of also catching a lot of 'good guys' (Driving a car that doesn't belong to you? Auto theft! Carrying a gun and over $100 cash? Armed robbery!). But it seems those odds are acceptable when it's "for the children." :rolleyes:

DSeid

06-10-2002, 06:49 AM

Mr20001

Let's take your logic further - Are there any 10 year olds who are capable of giving consent? 8 year olds? .... Certainly there are some who think that they are. Are they just because they believe it? Is there no victim?

Of course nothing really happens on the 18th birthday other than an arbitrary date passing. Of course, some 16 year olds are more mature than some 21 year olds, and some 14 year olds are mature intelligent people. But, society has to make an arbitrary decision. How old is old enough to be considered age of consent, and how young is young enough to be defined as below the age of consent. Who deserves the protection of the law? And once that decision is made, then an adult having sex with a child under that age is breaking the law, is having sex with a person unable to give consent, by definition.

We all accept that there is a difference between a 45 yo having sex with a 12 yo, and a 22 yo having sex with an "experienced" 16 yo .... without all accepting that either is morally acceptable or that either is "right" or all accepting that the latter should be legal either ... One hopes that a court takes that into account at the point of sentencing.

Left Hand of Dorkness

06-10-2002, 09:38 AM

You know, I'm all in favor of protecting kids from sexual predators. The fact remains, however, that statutory rape laws turn some very good folks I know (and knew when I was younger) into felons.

I know that my brother wasn't victimized by my friend who was six years his senior; I know that my first girlfriend was less traumatized by her relationship with a college student than she was by her relationship with me (or, for that matter, than I was by her relationship with a college student).

Should I be willing to see the college student go to prison, or to see my friend go to prison, because their incarceration makes it easier to incarcerate real sexual predators?

I'm just not willing to accept that.

***

There was a case in North Carolina about ten years ago, in which a man was acquitted of raping a woman by the jury. The judge, however, thought he was guilty. And during the trial, testimony came out that the woman had performed oral sex on the man.

Oral sex is a felony in North Carolina. The judge sent the man to prison.

Obviously, not everyone who commits oral sex is a sexual predator. However, it's good to have the laws against oral sex on the books, because it makes it much easier to catch actual sexual predators.

Discuss.

Daniel

shrew

06-10-2002, 10:59 AM

daniel, I could be wrong, but I think most of us would agree that oral sex should no longer be a felony in any state. It is still a felony in Georgia, by the way. Sexual contact with a child under the age of fifteen should still be, in my opinion.

mr2001 and I obviously disagree about the ability of a 14-year old to give consent. In my opinion, it doesn't matter how mature a 14-year old is, he/she is unable to give consent simply because he/she is still a child. Maybe 15 seems like an arbitrary number to some, but it's no more arbitrary than 18, 16, or 42. It gives us a number that is reasonable in the eyes of the law to look at children as "young adults" who can make their own decisions. If a child truly is mature at 14, as maybe two of my students are, then they realize the rationale for the law, and they understand the need for it.

I don't believe I will ever be converted to the belief that 14- year olds should be allowed to be preyed upon by men (or women) wishing to have sex with them. In my Judeo-Christian little world, anyone who wishes to have sex with a 14-year old should be locked up. Period.

I spend all day with teenagers. I've dedicated my career to their education. I go to their ball games, banquets, proms, etc. Their protection, education, and welfare are what I live for. I have several who are more mature than others, but none of them are mature enough for the responsibility of sex. The two that I mentioned may be wiser than the others, but they are still very much children in a million other ways. Many of them, no doubt, are already having sex, but it doesn't make them responsible enough for it.

I want to know what world you live in, mr2001, in which you know 14-year olds who are mature enough for sex. I teach them everyday, and I haven't met one YET who fits that description.

Mr2001

06-10-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by DSeid
Let's take your logic further - Are there any 10 year olds who are capable of giving consent? 8 year olds? .... Certainly there are some who think that they are. Are they just because they believe it? Is there no victim?
There may be.. I haven't met any myself, and I doubt I ever will, but I have no reason to think it's impossible. I'd have to look at each case individually, unless presented with medical evidence that 100% of humans younger than N years are incapable of giving consent.

Is there a victim? Well, if the child doesn't feel she has been victimized, she wasn't subject to any force or fraud, and she (as an individual) hasn't been found incapable of giving consent, I don't think she's a victim.

And I don't think we can possibly help the child by telling her, "I know you don't feel like anything is wrong, but what happened was very bad, and your friend is a very bad man who will be going away for a long time," creating a painful memory from what was otherwise a pleasant (or at least unremarkable) experience.

But, society has to make an arbitrary decision. How old is old enough to be considered age of consent, and how young is young enough to be defined as below the age of consent.
I disagree. The statement "all children under 16 are incapable of giving consent" makes about as much sense as "all men over 20 are capable of running down the street carrying a television." Both statements are substitutes for actually discovering the facts of each individual case, and they're only useful when saving time and money is more important than justice.

Originally posted by shrew
I want to know what world you live in, mr2001, in which you know 14-year olds who are mature enough for sex. I teach them everyday, and I haven't met one YET who fits that description.
I know when I was that age, I acted differently while I was in class than when I was with my friends. Could it be that you're just not seeing them in situations that demand this kind of maturity?

Blalron

06-10-2002, 08:24 PM

I think the term "minor" is derogatory. To me, It implies that you are less of a person unless you are a certain age. Many "minors" I know are a hell of a lot more responsible than some adults I know.

I.D's can be faked. Birth Certificates can be faked. I don't see how it's fair that people can be charged with statuatory rape if this so called "minor" tricked them.

Yes, they have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't agree with the stance that my particular state takes in regard to this. In Oregon, an 18 year old could be thrown in jail and labeled a sex offender for having consensual sex with a 17 year old. actually, it doesn't even have to be sex. Even touching the breasts or buttocks region could get you in trouble for "corrupting a minor".

The law pretends that some magical switch comes on when you turn 18 that makes you able to have sex with anyone above that age and makes anyone below that age by even a day off limits. So your 18 years old huh? Well, you can bed a 45 year old paroled felon with AIDS, but I'm afraid making out with your 17 year old girlfriend is off limits.

clairobscur

06-10-2002, 09:54 PM

I think there must be some sort of age limit, not because i think a minor isn't able to give an informed consent (from a pragmactical point of view, not from the legal point since it this can the underaged person, by definition, can't give an informed consent), but because young people are to easy to manipulate and influence. Even a 6 y.o. has a sexual curiosity and could want to have a sexual contact with an adult. But any adult would be able to manipulate said 6 y.o. in any way he wants, which is very unlikely to be similar to what the 6 y.o. envisionned.

However :

-I don't think the sentences should be the same for an actual rape an a statutory rape. If the minor gave consent, it should be at least an attenuating circumstance. In the same way, a minor commiting a crime is assumed to have a reduced responsability, usually, but not *no responsability at all*. It depends on the countries, of course, but if say, a 14 y.o. committing a murder can be sentenced (hence is at least partially responsible for his actions), he should be considered also partially responsible when giving his consent. Hence, the older person he/she slept with shouldn't be sentenced like he had commited an actual rape. Either minors are responsible, either they aren't.

-I read in this thread that in some places (here too, I believe, actually), the age difference is irrelevant. Which appears to be nonsentical to me. Some posters wrote that 18 yo have been actually branded and sentenced as child abusers for having slept with their 17 yo gf. Or 15 yo with a 13 yo. There should always be an age difference limit, and only above that age difference could someone be prosecuted. Especially given the fact that a "child abuser" will have to face a lot of problems in his future life.

-If someone had very reasonnable reasons to believe his/her partner was above age of consent, he/she shouldn't be held criminally responsible. If someone manage to enter in a place where he/she shouldn't be allowed in, lie about his/her age and even show a fake ID, we're not even talking about someone who gives consent, but about someone who's doing everything he/she can to enter in someone else's pants. If you're able to do all that, there no way I can consider that as a "lack of consent". Except if the minor is mentally disturbed, but in this case, the situation is not different than in the case of a mentally disturbed adult

-IMO, the age of consent should be under 18. Don't know about the US, but here I believe the average age for the first intercourse is around 17 (the age of consent is 15, except for people who have a de jure or de facto authority on the minor). If the law state the age of consent is 18 while actual first intercourse happen on average at 17, it means that more than half of the population is criminally liable (the 17 yo necessarily slept with someone who was either older or younger, hence someone commited a crime). When the law isn't any more in touch with reality to the point that at least half the population is supposed to be guilty of a "heinous" crime (child's rape), there's a big issue, and it should be adressed ASAP.

-Finally (and this part is essentially directed to shrew), it seems to me that sex is overrated. It's great, it's important, whatever...But it's not the ultimate experience in life, except under rare cicumstances. Having had an intercourse willingly while a teenager certainly isn't going to devastate your life, even if the experience wasn't that great. And even if your partner was twice your age. Sex without love isn't psychologically devastating. Sex with someone older isn't either. It can even be perceived as very positive (depending on age difference/circumstances, of course)..look at this poster thinking that a 16 yo boy having sex with a 24 yo will just "get lucky" (and keeping in mind that a lot of people tend to think boys are more immature than girls hence should be less able to give consent). Teens can make worst mistakes than that, with worst consequences. I'm ignoring pregnancy/MST issues here, because it's another debate, related to sex ed.

If one stop considering sex as somewhat "sacred", and considers it in a more mundane way, more in touch with the ordinary life of a large part of the population, the issue at hand immediatly becomes much less serious.

I would add also (again to shrew) that one should be cautious with one's wording. Writing that "anyone who wishes to have sex with a 14-year old should be locked up. Period." basically means you believe that people should be punished for their thoughts. Fortunately, we still din't invent a thought control device...(and considering the age of a lot of models, I tend to think that many advertizers think that most men enter in the category which should be "locked up" according to you).

shrew

06-10-2002, 11:31 PM

by mr2001:
I know when I was that age, I acted differently while I was in class than when I was with my friends. Could it be that you're just not seeing them in situations that demand this kind of maturity?Sure it's possible, but from what I can tell of my students, they are much more mature in class than out. I am often shocked by their immature behavior outside of my room that they would never attempt in my presence (and by all accounts, I'm the most liberal relaxed teacher they have). So if what I see is the"better" version of them, then their at home behavior is even less mature. So sure their behavior is different at home, but not necessarily better or indicative of a maturity that I don't see.

by Blalron:
I think the term "minor" is derogatory. To me, It implies that you are less of a person unless you are a certain age.
Well, technically speaking, a minor is less of a person. A minor is protected from things from which adults aren't protected. They receive privileges that adults don't receive. If a minor is suddenly homeless, without a guardian, or starving in the streets, the government will provide for him/her. An adult doesn't get a foster parent! An adult doesn't receive protection from criminal prosecution the way a child does. So in the eyes of the law, your statement isn't far off. A minor does not bear the burden of adulthood, so the phrase "less of a person" rightfully applies, IMHO.

I.D's can be faked. Birth Certificates can be faked. I don't see how it's fair that people can be charged with statuatory rape if this so called "minor" tricked them.
I was discussing this with a RL friend of mine yesterday, and she and I both agree with you. I kept trying to get around it, but if the girl lies and intentionally tricks the boy, and he had a legitimate reason to believe she was of age, then he should not be punished.

by clairobsur:
I would add also (again to shrew) that one should be cautious with one's wording. Writing that "anyone who wishes to have sex with a 14-year old should be locked up. Period." basically means you believe that people should be punished for their thoughts. Ah, thank you for the admonition. Of course.

by mr2001:
And I don't think we can possibly help the child by telling her, "I know you don't feel like anything is wrong, but what happened was very bad, and your friend is a very bad man who will be going away for a long time," creating a painful memory from what was otherwise a pleasant (or at least unremarkable) experience. Sweet Lord. You have no concept of what it's like to be female. Calling a sexual encounter under the age of fifteen "unremarkable" is unfathomable to me. I remember every single time a man put his hands on me in a way that made me uncomfortable. One of those men was later jailed for molesting a little boy, and had my father not taught me "good touch/bad touch" so fervently that I was aware of what was going on, that could have been me. As it was, I ran from the room and found my mama. No one would have had to tell me I had been violated. I would have known it instinctively and without question down to my very bones. And as an adult, I would have been FURIOUS that no one had been there to protect me. I remember many instances when men, including my own grandfather, looked at me with lust in their eyes. There is nothing UNREMARKABLE about it. It is a violation of a child's very soul.

Blalron

06-10-2002, 11:40 PM

Sex without love isn't psychologically devastating.

I think that people who frequently engage in loveless sex probably have some issues to deal with. In my experience, people (at least females) who are promiscous usually have grown up in broken homes.

If one stop considering sex as somewhat "sacred", and considers it in a more mundane way, more in touch with the ordinary life of a large part of the population, the issue at hand immediatly becomes much less serious.

I disagree. If we all went the "sacred" route and took more consideration into who we were having sex with, we'd be better off. Less STDs, less unwanted pregnancies, less single parent homes, less deadbeat dads. A cavalier attitude towards sex will only worsen these issues.

shrew

06-10-2002, 11:51 PM

I agree with you on both accounts, blalron.

Lamia

06-11-2002, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001

I assume that since you knew her personally, you're speaking of her capability to give informed consent as an individual, not simply as a person younger than an arbitrary age. Correct?

In that case, why bother with a needlessly restrictive age limit if you can determine, on an individual basis, who is capable of giving informed consent and who is incapable?

I know her personally, but did not know her when she was twelve -- we did not meet until we were both adults. But even if we had never met and I had merely heard her story on an online message board I would be quite certain that she was incapable of giving informed consent because there are no twelve year olds capable of giving informed consent. They do not exist. I do not think that anyone who knows anything about children or human development will disagree with me on this. There is better evidence for the existence of the yeti than there is for the existence twelve year old child capable of fully comprehending the potential consequences of sex and making a well-informed decision to consent to sex.

Mr2001

06-11-2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by shrew
Sweet Lord. You have no concept of what it's like to be female. Calling a sexual encounter under the age of fifteen "unremarkable" is unfathomable to me. I remember every single time a man put his hands on me in a way that made me uncomfortable. [...] As it was, I ran from the room and found my mama. No one would have had to tell me I had been violated. I would have known it instinctively and without question down to my very bones.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience, but it's irrelevant to everything I've said here.

My position is that consensual encounters with no force or fraud involved should be legal--encounters where the state currently does step in and tell the minor, "you were violated, you just don't realize it." If you were uncomfortable and ended up running from the room, obviously whatever happened was against your will, and your situation was different.

Now, just because you had a bad experience at a young age doesn't mean that every sexual experience at a young age is bad. I know a few girls who were having sex at age 15 and younger, and they remember it in a much more positive light than you do.

Originally posted by Lamia
There is better evidence for the existence of the yeti than there is for the existence twelve year old child capable of fully comprehending the potential consequences of sex and making a well-informed decision to consent to sex.
An interesting assertion. I remember learning about pregnancy and STDs in school, year after year, and understanding quite well. Exactly which potential consequences is a 12-year-old unable to comprehend?

Lamia

06-11-2002, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001

An interesting assertion. I remember learning about pregnancy and STDs in school, year after year, and understanding quite well.

Oh really. It's funny how many people claim they understood complex concepts as children, considering that actual studies on childhood development or even simple daily interaction with children is enough to prove that there are many things that children are incapable of understanding at all. What you think you remember about what you understood as a child is not proof of anything. People cannot easily remember what they really did and did not understand as children because their brains are, in a very literal and very real sense, different than they were when they were children.

SteveSteve

06-11-2002, 04:53 PM

Just a couple of thoughts:

*I would generally trust the judgment of the average 18 year old (I know some of them would be bad, but I am talking most here)behind the wheel of a car, I would NOT trust the judgment of the average 12 year old (once again I know there would be exceptions). Anyone who thinks that it should be legal for ALL 12 year olds to drive please sound off, or if anyone thinks that we should be spending our tax dollars on a case by case assessment of 12 year olds who want to drive, please let us know. For that matter why don't you let a twelve year old manage you checking account for a year and see if they are competent to make life altering choices.

*Playing Doctor, Experimenting, or just Having Sex with your peers as part of the growing process is qualifiedly different than a more experienced person taking advantage of your lack of experience. I could probably talk a 12 year old into giving me his/her allowance of their own free will, but A) that doesn't make it right, and B) the very fact that they are so young and unsophisticated is part of why I can get them to happily hand over their money. You might say that the kids allowance in exchange for spending time with older folks who make them feel more mature is a fair trade from the kids perspective. But the 12 year old is not going to get pregnant/STD's/heart broken from just hanging out with an old man (well, hopefully not:)).

*I slept with random people throughout high school, college and into my twenties. As I grew older my responsibility about birth control/STD protection improved. Seems obvious but as we get older we get more responsible. There is no age that you wake up in the morning and have your shit together. I personally never really did. We can't assume that no one will ever have their shit together, and we can't assume that everyone always has, so as a society at some point we have to draw a line in the sand. After this age good, before this age bad. Is it arbitrary? Pretty much. Can it be painfully unfair? Absolutely. That is the nature of the beast.

*A fair portion of this debate seems to be really- Is it worse to condemn an "innocent" person or let a "guilty" one go free. I would say that depends on the crime. Shoplifting? I would say err on the side of letting the guilty go free. Having sex with minors? I would say err on the side of condemning an innocent person. The sacrifice is worth the benefits (obviously I would change my tune if I were one of the innocents condemned, but I wouldn't want legislation to be based on that) As it is, we "sacrifice" the LIVES of 40,000 people a year for the convenience of driving.(http://www.legallawhelp.com/safety_and_health/auto_accidents/)

*I don't have a cite but I would bet you that the majority of pre-age of consent pregnancies, STD's, etc. are the result of contact with a person older than the minor's peer group. I may be way off base on this one. The point is, that if my assertion is true (and I freely admit it may not be) that those problems would not have occurred were it not for the older person having sex with that younger person. And just because the younger person wanted it too doesn't make it OK, there was a lot of shit I wanted as a kid (hell, there still is) that was very, very, very bad for me. I am glad that there were parents and laws and a society around to keep me from killing myself or others until I had a chance to grow up a little (in my case a very little).

* I may have repeated some stuff that others have said, I tried to read most of the posts, but in addition to being self righteous, I have a very short attention span.

Mr2001

06-11-2002, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Lamia
Oh really. It's funny how many people claim they understood complex concepts as children, considering that actual studies on childhood development or even simple daily interaction with children is enough to prove that there are many things that children are incapable of understanding at all.
The concepts of pregnancy and STDs aren't really that complex.

Any 12-year-old child can understand that if they hang around other kids with chicken pox or the flu, they're likely to catch the disease - that's why they get to stay home from school when they're sick, so they don't infect their classmates. It's not hard to grasp that there are some diseases you catch by having sex with someone instead of by letting them cough on you.

And I haven't met a single 12-year-old who doesn't know where babies come from.

DSeid

06-11-2002, 07:59 PM

I don't know what it means to be emale either, but I know about being a parent and I remember being a child.

I just want to make sure that I've got Mr2001's position right -

It should be legal for any age adult to have sex with any age child as long as it can not be shown that the child was an unwilling participant, coerced, or incapable of informed consent. A step father having sex with his ten year old step daughter who says that she wants to and says that she understands about sex and disease is just dandy, unless you can prove that she was coerced.

Okaaaaaaay.

No more really needs to be said. If you really believe what you say then you are need of some serious help. Bleh.

Mr2001

06-11-2002, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by DSeid
I just want to make sure that I've got Mr2001's position right -

It should be legal for any age adult to have sex with any age child as long as it can not be shown that the child was an unwilling participant, coerced, or incapable of informed consent.
Correct. In fact, age isn't a factor at all - with possible exceptions for relationships such as parent/child, employer/employee, or teacher/student (in which one person is in a position of power over the other, and coercion is almost implied), it should be legal for any person to have sex with any other person, as long as neither participant is unwilling, coerced, or incapable of informed consent.

The primary opposing argument seems to be that nearly all minors are incapable of informed consent. If that's true, it should be a piece of cake to prove on an individual basis, right?

If you really believe what you say then you are need of some serious help. Bleh.
Is there some reasoning behind that accusation, or just a gut feeling of "oh, that's icky, only a crazy person would think that"?

Lamia

06-11-2002, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001

The concepts of pregnancy and STDs aren't really that complex.

They are apparently complex even for adults, or we would not have any unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease would be practically unheard of.

Mr2001

06-11-2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Lamia
They are apparently complex even for adults, or we would not have any unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease would be practically unheard of.
How many of those unwanted pregnancies do you think are caused by a failure to understand how women get pregnant? Most people with double-digit ages realize the stork is just a fairy tale.

Also note that since sex education is much more thorough today than it has been in the past, young people may actually be more informed about preventing pregnancy and STDs than a lot of adults. How many adults were taught about contraception and symptoms/prevention of STDs (and were tested on what they learned), year after year, from elementary through high school?

Lamia

06-12-2002, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Mr2001

How many of those unwanted pregnancies do you think are caused by a failure to understand how women get pregnant?

I would be interested to hear your explanation for unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease if you believe that everyone has a perfect understanding and comprehension of what causes and what can prevent these things.

Also note that since sex education is much more thorough today than it has been in the past, young people may actually be more informed about preventing pregnancy and STDs than a lot of adults. How many adults were taught about contraception and symptoms/prevention of STDs (and were tested on what they learned), year after year, from elementary through high school?

You cannot possibly believe that the sort of K-12 sex education you describe is common in the US. I myself had but one semester of sex education in the thirteen years I spent in public school. Many children live in districts with "abstinence only" sex education programs, where they will learn nothing about contraception.

DSeid

06-12-2002, 08:50 PM

Yes, Mr2001, I think that the position that adults should be able to have sex with minors of any age is quite icky and that only a crazy person would think that.

Interestingly, you seem to agree that society must decide that some relationships are to considered so imbalanced as to make noncoercion impossible - "relationships such as parent/child, employer/employee, or teacher/student (in which one person is in a position of power over the other, and coercion is almost implied)" An arbitrary place to draw a line ... is no child able to be competent to decide that they want to have sex with dear old dad? Or with teach or coach or boss?

Or is it that you find such circumstances icky?

Mr2001

06-14-2002, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Lamia
I would be interested to hear your explanation for unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease if you believe that everyone has a perfect understanding and comprehension of what causes and what can prevent these things.
That's a topic for a whole new thread. ;)

I'd suggest unintended pregnancy is mostly caused by a lack of knowledge about contraception, including how to obtain birth control devices, how to use them properly, and which methods of birth control work best. (Q: What do you call couples who rely on the rhythm method or withdrawal? A: Parents.)

Then I'd suggest the spreading of STDs is mostly caused by a lack of knowledge about the symptoms and specific ways to spread various diseases - e.g., are those red bumps caused by shaving or by an STD? Do condoms protect against disease X?

This isn't the kind of knowledge that can only be gained through life experience or deep contemplation; it's the kind of knowledge that can be photocopied and handed out on street corners. It's far less complicated than a lot of subjects included in the average high school biology class.

You cannot possibly believe that the sort of K-12 sex education you describe is common in the US. I myself had but one semester of sex education in the thirteen years I spent in public school.
It's common where I live, at least - I moved to the area in 4th grade, and there was sex education in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grades. I'm not familiar with the quality of education in other areas; I'll admit that the policies I've suggested probably wouldn't work unless the quality of sex education were much higher and more consistent.

But as long as I'm making sweeping changes to "statutory rape" laws, why not demand quality sex education as well?

Originally posted by DSeid
Yes, Mr2001, I think that the position that adults should be able to have sex with minors of any age is quite icky and that only a crazy person would think that.
Personally, I'm just as appalled that anyone would want to convict an innocent person of a sex offense, especially considering the consequences of the conviction: jail time, lost job opportunities, having to register whenever you move and tell the neighbors you're a sex offender, and the permanent stigma of a crime so many people consider evil.

The idea that someone who has never harmed a soul should have to go through all that, simply because ignoring the facts of each case makes it easier and cheaper to catch actual offenders, disheartens me to no end. I'd say the people who call that justice are the crazy ones.

An arbitrary place to draw a line ... is no child able to be competent to decide that they want to have sex with dear old dad? Or with teach or coach or boss?

Or is it that you find such circumstances icky?
Actually, I do find most of what I've defended here to be icky - but I don't let that cloud my judgment.

I just don't think you can make a free choice when the implication of "if you say no, forget about that raise/grade/spot on the starting lineup" is constantly in the background. And like I said, age isn't a factor; I'd be just as suspicious of a 30-year-old employer propositioning a 30-year-old employee as I would a 30-year-old coach propositioning a 17-year-old student.

Descolada

06-14-2002, 02:34 AM

If I may make a quick comment, the major issue of this thread (which took me two hours to read through fully) has been whether minors are able to make informed decisions about sex and therefor able to give consent. The problem is, adults in any age range from 20 onto 100 are unable to make informed decisions as well. Take the hypothetical situation in which a woman suddenly finds the man she's been dating for a few months unattractive, whether physically or habits, or emotions, etc. No one would ever consider their sexual activity to be rape. My point is, why suggest minors don't have the ability, when adults do not either?

Just a thought.

NightRabbit

06-14-2002, 02:36 AM

I find the opposition to the statutory rape laws incredible.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying but, as a youngster, my parents and older relatives and friends have encouraged me to try many many things that I didn't want to do or thought better of at the time- stick my head under the water, eat something that looked godawful-nasty, or even taking shots of liquor (which I was afraid of at first!). There's no denying that sort of influence. If a 20-something trusted family friend takes it in his mind to convince a 13 yr old to do almost ANYTHING, no matter how rational the kid may be, there will still never be an equal balance of influence there.

When it's something that can be as drastically life-or-death as becoming pregnant or catching AIDS, it's not a light issue. Frankly, I'd rather see some sexually-frustrated 14 yr old girls moaning about their virginity than pregnant b/c they didn't know how to say no. Ask anyone who waited (even unintentionally) a couple of years to have sex- IT'S NOT HARMFUL TO WAIT. THEY'LL LIVE. At the very least, it teaches self-control.

My bottom line:
Weigh the consequences here- a minor has sex with an older man or woman. At the very worst, said minor was coerced emotionally or physically to have sex, and could wind up emotionally scarred or permanently harmed physically, with STDs or pregnant. Now say the older party thinks better of it. The worst that happens in this case is that both parties might feel sexually frusterated for a while. Big honking deal. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution. This isn't a religious thing, it's a common sense thing. And since a jury can't be present at every encounter with a minor deciding whether or not the minor is mature enough to make the decision, it seems sensical enough to, again, for the laws to err on the side of caution.

There's no "right" to instant sexual gratification, or even prolonged sexual gratification. Plus, there's no "right" to have sex with anyone you want. We aren't infringing on an 18 yr old's "freedom" if we tell him he can't have sex with a minor. That's just dumb.

NightRabbit

06-14-2002, 02:38 AM

P.S. Welcome to the boards, Descolada!

Shodan

06-14-2002, 08:30 AM

This is bizarre stuff.

I suppose somewhere, if you looked long enough, you could find a thirteen year old who was mature enough to make an informed decision about sex with an adult.

But do you honestly believe that some horny 23 year old with a taste for young girls is going to be so scrupulously careful to determine that his latest target is a responsible, mature young woman with insight far beyond her years when he can't even be bothered to find out how old she is?

Sheesh!

Regards,
Shodan

DSeid

06-14-2002, 10:52 AM

Mr2001,

I think the difficulty here resides within deciding what is meant by "innocent."

If I may restate your POV, you believe that innocent means not violating the original intended purpose of the law. In the case of statutory rape, the intended purpose is the prevention of coerced sex (nonviolent but still coerced by virtue of an undeveloped competency to make decisions of such import). Let's remove it from such a charged subject:

So. If the goal of having a law of having to stop at a red light is to prevent accidents, and an individual comes to a red light and there is no traffic coming for blocks, and he goes, then, since he is not really increasing the risk of an accident at that moment, you would declare him "innocent."

I'd say that he still broke the law, even if had not violated the original intent of the law. That the law is a fair one. And that even though a few people who had no intent of violating the intent of the law would be punished under this interpretation, that never the less, no one "innocent" would be. Society had decided that safety required what the law should be in order to reduce accidents at that intersection most of the time. It was an arbitrary decision but one that weighed the benefits of such a blanket decision versus the costs of limiting freedoms to travel quickly. It is now the law. You run the red light and you break the law. Even if it is safe at the time.

Should the law be that it is only illegal to go through a red light if the state can prove that conditions were unsafe to do so at the time?

Sex with someone under 18 is a "red light." A more important goal, and thus a more severe penalty, but otherwise comparable. You run the red light you are breaking the law and you know it. You may not think that a particular intersection needs a stoplight, or that it shouldn't apply at that moment, but a decision has been made. If you run that red light you break the law. You may not be coercing that particular person, but you aint "innocent".

Mr2001

06-14-2002, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by NightRabbit
There's no denying that sort of influence. If a 20-something trusted family friend takes it in his mind to convince a 13 yr old to do almost ANYTHING, no matter how rational the kid may be, there will still never be an equal balance of influence there.
My friends convinced me to buy a few PS2 games. A Toyota salesman convinced me to buy a new Corolla. As a telemarketer, I convinced hundreds of people to buy concert tickets. Was there an imbalance of power in any of those situations?

Which do you think is more likely: I bought the car because I liked the styling, features, and price; or I bought the car because the salesman was older than me and therefore he was able to bend me to his will? (Hint: the former.) Why is it necessarily any different for minors?

Weigh the consequences here- a minor has sex with an older man or woman. At the very worst, said minor was coerced emotionally or physically to have sex, and could wind up emotionally scarred or permanently harmed physically, with STDs or pregnant.
If they were coerced through force or fraud, they weren't willing participants; I don't think anyone is supporting rape here. And your statements have nothing to do with age - replace "minor" with "30 year old" and you're saying the exact same thing.

There's no "right" to instant sexual gratification, or even prolonged sexual gratification. Plus, there's no "right" to have sex with anyone you want. We aren't infringing on an 18 yr old's "freedom" if we tell him he can't have sex with a minor. That's just dumb.
And I suppose we aren't infringing on a black man's "freedom" if we tell him he can't have sex with a white woman? After all, there's no law protecting the right to have interracial sex, and some (irrational) white women might feel threatened or intimidated by black men. But somehow I don't think you'd want to codify that into law.

Instead, we treat it just as any other case of sex between two people. If the woman didn't give consent, or gave consent under duress, or was individually found to be unable to give consent (e.g., due to brain damage), it's rape. Otherwise it's just consensual sex and there's no crime; race isn't a factor, and age doesn't need to be a factor either.

Originally posted by DSeid
If I may restate your POV, you believe that innocent means not violating the original intended purpose of the law.
Correct. I've been using "innocent" in a non-legalese context, to refer to people who have not harmed anyone, whether or not they broke the law. If that's unclear, I'll use a different word.

If the goal of having a law of having to stop at a red light is to prevent accidents, and an individual comes to a red light and there is no traffic coming for blocks, and he goes, then, since he is not really increasing the risk of an accident at that moment, you would declare him "innocent."
Actually, I believe that's the law in some states, where you can defend against a traffic citation by showing that you were driving carefully and safely. And I think that's a wise policy for basically the same reasons.

But I'm not really opposed to strict red light laws because the choices you face are much less dire: wait a couple minutes for the light to change, or pay a small fine. No one is going to turn you down for a job because you ran a red light, the neighbors aren't going to keep their kids indoors when you walk past, you aren't going to go to prison and become a jaded criminal with a loose sphincter.

In addition, the state has a much more legitimate interest in controlling traffic on the roads that it pays to build and maintain, than it does in controlling the bedroom habits of consenting citizens in private homes. Traffic laws also apply equally to everyone - there's no aspect of "if you're over 18, use your own judgment as to whether it's safe to go; if you're under 18, we assume your judgment is flawed."

clairobscur

06-15-2002, 05:08 AM

I found this site (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm) with a chart of the age of consent in most countries and US states.

They range from 12 (several south-american countries) to 21 (Madagascar). Very few countries have an age of consent as high as 18. It's usually between 14 and 16.

Shodan

06-15-2002, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Mr2001

My friends convinced me to buy a few PS2 games. A Toyota salesman convinced me to buy a new Corolla. As a telemarketer, I convinced hundreds of people to buy concert tickets. Was there an imbalance of power in any of those situations?
Depends on how old you were. Did you sell any concert tickets to ten year olds? Why is that any different?
Originally posted by Mr2001

If they were coerced through force or fraud, they weren't willing participants; I don't think anyone is supporting rape here. And your statements have nothing to do with age - replace "minor" with "30 year old" and you're saying the exact same thing.

In a word, bullshit. Replace "30 year old" with "8 year old". You are not saying the exact same thing.
Originally posted by Mr2001
Instead, we treat it just as any other case of sex between two people. If the woman didn't give consent, or gave consent under duress, or was individually found to be unable to give consent (e.g., due to brain damage), it's rape. Otherwise it's just consensual sex and there's no crime; race isn't a factor, and age doesn't need to be a factor either.
More bullshit. Age needs to be a factor for exactly the reasons you mentioned - minors are found to be unable to give consent. It is therefore rape. Q.E.D.
Originally posted by Mr2001
Traffic laws also apply equally to everyone - there's no aspect of "if you're over 18, use your own judgment as to whether it's safe to go; if you're under 18, we assume your judgment is flawed." And finally, bullshit. Traffic laws have an "age of consent"of 16. Try defending some 14 year old who was caught driving a car on the grounds that she is real mature for her age, or because she dressed just like a nineteen year old.

Regards,
Shodan

Riboflavin

06-15-2002, 11:57 AM

To throw another angle into the debate - I certainly don't agree with the position that if a kid hasn't been coerced into sex that it's all fine and dandy, since young kids really don't understand the concepts. From all of the writing on child development, young kids don't have the understanding of what they're getting into and are conditioned to obey adults. However, I also think that laws where there's suddenly a crime in having sex when Fred turns 18 while Mary is still 17, but other than the time during the X month difference in their birthdays it's OK.

What do people think about more complicated age of consent laws that some states have? For example, in NC age of consent is 16 (that is, if the younger person is 16 or older, there's no crime) and no one can be prosecuted for statutory rape if the pair involved are within 5 years of age. That seems like a very reasonable law to me, since it prevents the 'he's 3 months older than her, it's a crime if we catch him before her birthday comes up' absurdity, but still outlaws the 30YO/12YO situation. Also, having 16 as the consent age means that someone actually can use 'she looked 18' as a standard instead of asking for ID (and the hypothetical fake ID etc); while I can certainly believe that there are 16 YOs who can pass for 18, I have a hard time buying that there are 14YOs would are passing as adults to mature men, and our poor horny 18YO is safe from prosecution as long as he can weed out the 12YOs.

How many of you would find laws like that one OK? I know there's one person who wouldn't accept anything but revocation of any stautory rape laws, but he's not the only one here. Would a law like the one I summarized above satisfy both the 'protect the children' and the 'jeeze, they're both kids' crowd?

Mr2001

06-15-2002, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Shodan
Depends on how old you were. Did you sell any concert tickets to ten year olds? Why is that any different?
No, because ten year olds are legally unaccountable for buying things on the phone, and we didn't like sending out bills to people who weren't going to send back money. Other than that, it's not any different.

In a word, bullshit. Replace "30 year old" with "8 year old". You are not saying the exact same thing.
Let's look at the post I was referring to:
Weigh the consequences here- a minor has sex with an older man or woman. At the very worst, said minor was coerced emotionally or physically to have sex, and could wind up emotionally scarred or permanently harmed physically, with STDs or pregnant.
The word "minor" doesn't need to be there. A 30 year old can have sex with an older man or woman. Said 30 year old could have been coerced emotionally or physically, could wind up emotionally or physically scarred, and could have caught an STD or become pregnant.

Or are you suggesting that adults are immune from coercion, disease, and unwanted pregnancy?

More bullshit. Age needs to be a factor for exactly the reasons you mentioned - minors are found to be unable to give consent. It is therefore rape. Q.E.D.
They aren't "found" to be unable to give consent, they are asserted to be unable, in much the same way one could assert that all men over 20 are capable of running down the street carrying a television. Making that assertion into law doesn't make it any more true.

If minors were actually found to be unable to give consent as individuals, I would be happy.

And finally, bullshit. Traffic laws have an "age of consent"of 16. Try defending some 14 year old who was caught driving a car on the grounds that she is real mature for her age, or because she dressed just like a nineteen year old.
You probably won't be surprised to learn that I'm opposed to age limits for driver's licenses as well.

But since we were talking about red light laws, I mentioned that red light laws apply equally to everyone. Anyone can be cited for failing to stop at a red light, whether he's 15 or 50, whether he has a driver's license or not. Age is only involved in deciding who gets a license.