[QUOTE=Miller]
So, your position is that South Carolina and the entire nation of Canada have legalized rape?
[/QUOTE]
Well, if the age of consent is 14 in these areas then yes, I guess I would say that. I personally feel that 14 is too young to consent to sex.
It’s gonna take a lot longer than we thought.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
I get that there are huge practical differences between s-rape and f-rape, but to me there is no difference in the sense that a violation has occurred. Upthread the point was made that in s-rape there is no violation. I disagree with that. A person can be violated and not know it or feel it.
[/QUOTE]
WHAT violation ? The major “violation” I see here is when the state barges into people’s relationships without the desire or need of either party.
…or that it has legalized a severe mental disorder…
And no, sorry, but your opinion doesn’t count: The felony of “Rape” (which BTW is growing obsolete, being replaced by “sexual battery” in modern penal codes) is a legal concept that involves sex without valid consent. If the state/court recognizes 14 year olds as capable of providing valid consent, then there is no “rape”.
In any case, as to the shock at the low sentences: It happens that very often what the suspects are eventually actually convicted of (by trial or plea) is the actual, specific offense of sexual solicitation over the net, NOT that of attempted sexual assault. So of course they will not be sentenced as for the latter.
Also re: the comment about the girls who come to the door – IIRC, NBC/PJ indicate that they hire a very petite, young-looking actress to play the part. Having met quite a few ladies in their 20s who will get carded every time, and some young teens with rather accelerated development, I say that’s credible.
[QUOTE=Miller]
In what sense, then have they been violated?
[/QUOTE]
Generally, I don’t think that a child or young teenager in our society is emotionally and mentally mature enough to make informed and wise decisions about their sexual behavior with regard to potential long term emotional or mental damage.
As you pointed out, there are grey areas. Can a 16 or 17 make the right decisions? Hell, I don’t know. But a 14 or 9 or 3 year old? No, not in my opinion.
And so, when an adult has consensual sex with a 14 or 9 or 3 year old, they are doing so without knowing whether the person they are sleeping has the capacity to protect his or her self. Therein lay the violation.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Generally, I don’t think that a child or young teenager in our society is emotionally and mentally mature enough to make informed and wise decisions about their sexual behavior with regard to potential long term emotional or mental damage.
As you pointed out, there are grey areas. Can a 16 or 17 make the right decisions? Hell, I don’t know. But a 14 or 9 or 3 year old? No, not in my opinion.
And so, when an adult has consensual sex with a 14 or 9 or 3 year old, they are doing so without knowing whether the person they are sleeping has the capacity to protect his or her self. Therein lay the violation.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but I don’t recall an episode where someone pretended to be 9 or 3 years old. You wouldn’t happen to be muddying the waters just a mite to bolster your argument, would you?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’m sorry, but I don’t recall an episode where someone pretended to be 9 or 3 years old.
[/QUOTE]
What would be the difference, though?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You wouldn’t happen to be muddying the waters just a mite to bolster your argument, would you?
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t think so. Too young is too young.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
What would be the difference, though?
No, I don’t think so. Too young is too young.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, 3 years old is the same as 9 years old is the same as 14 years old, statutory rape is the same thing as forced rape, and Canada and South Carolina has legalized rape.
What’s that phrase under the Straight Dope banner, again?
Isn’t it kind of foolish to assume that all 14-year-olds are going to have the same emotional and sexual development?
[QUOTE=JRDelirious]
…or that it has legalized a severe mental disorder…
[/QUOTE]
Whatever you think of it’s morality, being attracted to 14 year olds isn’t a mental disorder, severe or otherwise. Historically, it’s been normal; as pointed out, that used to be a common age for marriage.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
What would be the difference, though?
[/QUOTE]
Someone “9 or 3 years old” lacks a sex drive of any force. It’s highly unlikely that they have consented, for the simple reason that they aren’t interested yet.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Whatever you think of it’s morality, being attracted to 14 year olds isn’t a mental disorder, severe or otherwise. Historically, it’s been normal; as pointed out, that used to be a common age for marriage.
[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure it’s not just historically, but biologically, normal.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Isn’t it kind of foolish to assume that all 14-year-olds are going to have the same emotional and sexual development?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, everyone develops differently, and in my previous statement I was generalizing.
I think everyone can generalize, and be comfortable with it, and come up with an age assignment for a child where, in their opinion, a child of that age would be too young for consensual sexual behavior with an adult.
Ah the three button school of the media: “off”; “sex”; and “panic.” They’ll press the latter two as hard as they can to keep the public from pressing the first.
This kind of show is akin to porn. Bad porn. There is no evidence that I am aware of that any of these admittedly scummy men would ever had approached any one on their own. The show creates a fear of internet stalkers way disproportionate to the real risk.
Most sexual abuse is NOT by strangers stalking the children.
One can well argue that shows like this do more harm than good by elevating the fear level of small risks and thereby minimizing attention to the larger risks of sexual abuse at the hands of those they know.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Whatever you think of it’s morality, being attracted to 14 year olds isn’t a mental disorder, severe or otherwise. Historically, it’s been normal; as pointed out, that used to be a common age for marriage.
Someone “9 or 3 years old” lacks a sex drive of any force. It’s highly unlikely that they have consented, for the simple reason that they aren’t interested yet.
[/QUOTE]
But for this discussion we are assuming consent, are we not?
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Well, if the age of consent is 14 in these areas then yes, I guess I would say that. I personally feel that 14 is too young to consent to sex.
[/QUOTE]
And how does that effect your opinion of either of those places? Would you willingly visit Canada, or buy products made there, knowing what you now know about their laws? Would you support economic sanctions against Canada, because of these laws, at least in the abstract, if not in practice?
Generally, I agree with you. However, that was not my question. You said that it’s possible to be violated, and not know it, or even feel it. I don’t understand how a person can suffer no ill effects from something, and still be violated by it. That’s not the same as saying a person can agree to something they think they can handle, and feel violated by it after the fact, which is why I think we need age of consent laws. But if a person has sex a fourteen, and they feel fine with it, and thirty years later, they still feel fine with it, can you really say that they’ve been violated in any meaningful sense of the word?
Why fourteen, in particular? What is different about a fourteen year old and a fifteen year old that suddenly makes this a black and white issue? How do you know to draw the line there, and not at sixteen, or seventeen, or twenty-one?
If I pick up a twenty-something chick at the bar and we have sex without ever saying more than five words to each other, I have no way of knowing if she has the capacity to protect herself. Have I violated her? If the violation lies solely in not being sufficiently solicitous of my partners emotional well-being, then it would seem that I have. I’ve certainly spent less time making sure she’s okay with having sex than most of these so-called predators, who often have to be begged and cajolled by their “victims” into showing up for their illegal rendezvous. By your logic, a drunken one-night stand is the moral equivalent of rape, and I’m pretty sure that’s not the position you’re trying to take, here.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Why fourteen, in particular? What is different about a fourteen year old and a fifteen year old that suddenly makes this a black and white issue? How do you know to draw the line there, and not at sixteen, or seventeen, or twenty-one?
[/QUOTE]
There is a difference in brain development. Since there are variations in adolescent brain development a legal age has to be specified.
It is important to remember the spirit of the statutory rape law so that it focuses on justice not legal technicalities. Should a mature man have sex with a minor? The answer is no. A minor is easily manipulated and exploited. The adult holds greater responsibility even if it is consensual. When, let’s say, a forty year old man has sex with a fourteen year old girl, I doubt it is because the man wants a long term relationship or conversation and a cigarette after the sexual deed is done. I can’t agree that a young teenage girl is mature enough to give consent to a mature man because she is not cognitively or emotionally equal to him.
Statutory rape should not include young men engaged in sexual activity with their under age girlfriends. This doesn’t uphold the spirit of the law. I don’t think the statutory rape law was intended to protect a girl from her peer group.
The NBC’s investigation was a witch hunt for ratings. Sex sells.
[QUOTE=Miller]
And how does that effect your opinion of either of those places? Would you willingly visit Canada, or buy products made there, knowing what you now know about their laws? Would you support economic sanctions against Canada, because of these laws, at least in the abstract, if not in practice?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I live in Canada, and while I disagree with the age of consent I’m not going to do anything about it beyond criticizing it on this message board.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Generally, I agree with you. However, that was not my question. You said that it’s possible to be violated, and not know it, or even feel it. I don’t understand how a person can suffer no ill effects from something, and still be violated by it.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t mean to imply that there wouldn’t be any delayed ill effects. It is conceivable to me that a person might consent to sex and then suffer from emotional or mental damage afterwards and I think the likelihood of this would increase as the age of the child decreased.
[QUOTE=Miller]
That’s not the same as saying a person can agree to something they think they can handle, and feel violated by it after the fact, which is why I think we need age of consent laws. But if a person has sex a fourteen, and they feel fine with it, and thirty years later, they still feel fine with it, can you really say that they’ve been violated in any meaningful sense of the word?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think I can actually. The offending adult didn’t know at the time that the child would, in fact, be ok after 30 years. The adult is taking a liberty to which they are not entitled.
If I had a 6 year old as a passenger and said, “Hey! You wanna run red lights at 100 mph?” and he says “Yea! Yea!”, that doesn’t give me the right to do so. I’m endangering the child even though they are fully compliant in the act. I am still violating that child. It would be irrelevant if we escaped from our driving stunts unscathed and the child enjoyed it and said “Again! Again!”. I committed an act with a consenting child where I did not know my actions would not harm the child. In fact, as a responsible adult I should assume that my actions will harm the child and I should not perform them despite the child’s wishes.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Why fourteen, in particular? What is different about a fourteen year old and a fifteen year old that suddenly makes this a black and white issue? How do you know to draw the line there, and not at sixteen, or seventeen, or twenty-one?
[/QUOTE]
Hell I don’t know. 14 sounds/seems about right. Maybe 15 or 16 is better. I made a statement upthread about how anyone can come up an age of consent that feels “right” for them. What’s yours? What should the age of consent be where you live? Why?
[QUOTE=Miller]
If I pick up a twenty-something chick at the bar and we have sex without ever saying more than five words to each other, I have no way of knowing if she has the capacity to protect herself. Have I violated her? If the violation lies solely in not being sufficiently solicitous of my partners emotional well-being, then it would seem that I have. I’ve certainly spent less time making sure she’s okay with having sex than most of these so-called predators, who often have to be begged and cajolled by their “victims” into showing up for their illegal rendezvous. By your logic, a drunken one-night stand is the moral equivalent of rape, and I’m pretty sure that’s not the position you’re trying to take, here.
[/QUOTE]
I think what is important here is addressing the age where we think consensual sex is appropriate. Once a person is beyond that age, the question of violation would be built upon more than the person’s age.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
There is a difference in brain development. Since there are variations in adolescent brain development a legal age has to be specified.
It is important to remember the spirit of the statutory rape law so that it focuses on justice not legal technicalities. Should a mature man have sex with a minor? The answer is no. A minor is easily manipulated and exploited. The adult holds greater responsibility even if it is consensual. When, let’s say, a forty year old man has sex with a fourteen year old girl, I doubt it is because the man wants a long term relationship or conversation and a cigarette after the sexual deed is done. I can’t agree that a young teenage girl is mature enough to give consent to a mature man because she is not cognitively or emotionally equal to him.
[/quote]
Sure, I’m not saying that a forty year old hooking up with a fourteen year old is fine and dandy. It’s creepy as hell, to say the least. But a forty year old man hooking up with an eighteen year old is also pretty creepy, but perfectly legal. I entirely support the existence of age of consent laws, but it’s important to realize that they are a legal convenience, not an absolute moral law. Eighteen, or sixteen, or fourteen, it’s still an arbitrary attempt to draw a line that protects the most amount of people who aren’t ready for a sexual relationship, while allowing the most amount of people who are ready to do what they want without government interference. I don’t have a problem with the law saying you can’t have sex with people under the age of eighteen, I just object to Shamozzle casting men who break that law as the equivalent of violent rapists or pedophiles. They did break the law, they should be punished for it, but despite what television tells us, they aren’t a great, roving threat to Our Nation’s Children. They’re guillible, middle-aged schlubs who need to learn to stop thinking with their dicks, is all.
[QUOTE=Miller]
…I just object to Shamozzle casting men who break that law as the equivalent of violent rapists or pedophiles. They did break the law, they should be punished for it, but despite what television tells us, they aren’t a great, roving threat to Our Nation’s Children. They’re guillible, middle-aged schlubs who need to learn to stop thinking with their dicks, is all.
[/QUOTE]
No, guys who troll for women at the bar are thinking with their dicks. Guys who troll for children are thinking with their ids. I’m being facetious, but you get the idea.
ETA: Back in two hours
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
No, guys who troll for women at the bar are thinking with their dicks. Guys who troll for children are thinking with their ids. I’m being facetious, but you get the idea.
[/QUOTE]
Not really, no. Why are men who have ill-advised sex with minors categorically different than men who have any other type of ill-advised sex? They’re both following their baser instincts over common sense and/or social norms, so why do we get so hot and bothered over the former?