Did you not read where I said that Mary Kay LeTourneau is the exception to the rule? Ever hear of a father buying his daughter a gigolo to usher her into womanhood? Me neither, but I have known plenty of guys who’s fathers’ bought them prostitutes to usher them into manhood. Each one of these guys was underage when it occured (and I heard the stories from them years later, when they were more settled in life, and not during their teenage years when they were most likely to bullshit about such things) and the prostitutes were all over the age of 18 (AFAIK). Hell, I knew of one guy who was screwing a 40 year old woman when he was a junior in high school! (He married her after graduation.) Society holds a double standard where a woman’s virginity is more important than a man’s, for some stupid reason. It’s wrong that it’s like that, but it certainly is the case.
You should choose your analogies more carefully. We do not issue driver’s licenses to 13-year olds, regardless of whether they are capable of passing the test.
Police and DA’s already have discretion in investigating and prosecuting a crime. Why do you imagine that the situation would be helped by making the statutes more vague?
For that matter, is this just your personal pet hijack or are you arguing that some fuzziness exists in the case of a 40+ year old man who gives alcohol and qualudes to a 13 year old girl and then sodomizes her?
You’re correct, but notice that we do have a test (we just don’t let everyone take it), and we don’t try to justify denying the 13 year old a license with false generalizations like “13 year olds are incapable of driving automobiles.”
Because a person who has sex with a consenting partner shouldn’t have to worry about whether someone will tip off the police, or whether the police will file charges, or whether the prosecutor will drop the case, or how sympathetic the judge will be. If consent is given, there’s no rape; if the law ignores the consent that was given and pursues a rape charge anyway, there’s no justice.
The former. Personally, I think age is entirely irrelevant to Roman Polanski’s case, but many posters to this thread seem to think otherwise.
Let me get this straight. If a guy drugged your 8 year old daughter and then had sex with her you wouldn’t have a problem with that? If a guy talked your 6 year old girl into sex you wouln’t have a problem with that? (Note, I am going over the top on purpose)
Do you Really think that young girls understand what sex is and have the ability to give consent? At what age do you think young girls can reasonably give consent? 8? 9? 13? 18?
I’d continue but I’d get banned for the words I want to call you Mr2001.
Slee
If I am understanding you then, you would do away with statutory rape all together, and simply look at the consent of the parties involved? I think a strong argument can be made that in this day and age, 18 is too old for statutory rape (and in many states it is less than 18) but I think an age does need to be established to protect children, especially given the evidenciary problems with consent.
Of course I would.
If a guy drugged your 60 year old aunt and then had sex with her, you’d have a problem with that, right? Even though she’s well past the age of consent.
That’s what I meant when I said age was irrelevant to Polanski’s case: drugging anyone for the purpose of having sex with them is illegal, whether they’re 13 or 30.
I’d trust any 16 year old girl I’ve met to give informed consent, and most 13 year old girls.
But I can’t give a specific age, because the question is unreasonable to begin with. At what age do you think young people can reasonably drive a car? 16? 13? 10? For any age you say, I can probably find someone younger who’s capable of driving a car, and the same is true of consenting to sex. That’s not to say there is no lower bound–I’d eat my hat if I saw a 5 year old driving down the freeway–but drawing a line at a specific age is nonsense.
I’m puzzled by the phrase “understand what sex is”, though. I had a very clear picture of what sex was in fifth grade, when I discovered the relevant sections of the encyclopedia. It’s pretty easy to grasp. Are you suggesting that the majority of young teenagers actually don’t know what sex is, or what can result from it?
If I were forced at gunpoint to give an age, I’d say 11 or 12.
What evidenciary problems are you referring to? Why don’t they apply to adults as well as minors?
Consent is, by its nature, a subjective evaluation, and in many rape cases there is little or no physical evidence. What you are left with is a swearing contest between the vic. and the defendant. Such a contest btw a 30 year old and a 13 year old is likely to be very one sided because of the relative differences between the parties. The same problems do apply to adults, but perhaps to a lesser degree.
The law is full of arbitrary ages. 18 to form (some) contracts, 21 to drink, 18 to vote, 16 to drive, 18 (in some places) to have sex. Sure there will be some people who are penalized, and some who benefit from these ages, but they are the best society can do to recognize that some activities are appropriate for some ages and others are not.
No, no, I don’t think so. Maybe a few, but not that many. A lot of 13 year olds may know what the sex act is, and they may know on some vague level that pregnancy can result from sex, but a lot of them don’t know how much of a pregnancy risk there is in sex. There are all sorts of bits of misinformation going around about sex, thanks to a lack of education, or just the mindset (among many young teenagers) of “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess that could happen, but not to me!”
Also, some 13 year old girls barely have started their periods! I know of (and have heard of) many girls who started their period with little preperation as to what it entails, what to expect, what it is. And yet you think they can be fully capable of understanding what the consequences of sex are?
And, let’s say that an 11 or 12 year old is able to give informed consent to have sex. What if they get pregnant? Who will support the child? (Assuming they don’t have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.) And you do realize that at age 11 or 12 a lot of girls may be menstruating, but their bodies aren’t really “ready” to have a pregnancy, right? (A lot of more health risks.)
But yes, some 11, 12 or 13 year olds have kids, and are able to carry the kids to term. Therefore, are they also old enough to hold down a fulltime job to help support the kid? After all, their parents (and the taxpayers) didn’t make any “informed consent” for this 11 or 12 year old to have sex—that was a decision (an"informed" decision) that the 11 or 12 year old made by themselves. So I don’t see how it would be appropriate to expect anyone else (other than their partner) to carry the burden or consequences of their “informed consent”, right?
And if they are able to make “informed consent” to have sex, it would follow that they are certainly entitled to make the decision to keep the child, carry it to term, etc. etc. I mean, after they’re pregnant, no one else can force them to give the child up or get an abortion. Obviously.
So, how old is old enough for a child to hold down a full time job? How would they fit school into all of this responsibility that may result from their “informed consent”?
How do you figure that?
Rather, some activities are appropriate for some people and others are not. Age is only a surrogate for whichever aspect of those people’s maturity you actually want to measure.
Imagine a carnival ride that’s unsafe for anyone shorter than 50 inches. You can be pretty sure that no 8 year olds will be tall enough to ride, and you can be pretty sure that most 18 year olds will be tall enough to ride. But you’d be a fool to set an age limit on the ride, since you can eliminate false negatives and positives by setting a height limit instead. Any government that respects personal liberties has a responsibility to keep false negatives to a minimum.
If they only know on a vague level, it sounds like their health teacher wasn’t doing his job. It just isn’t that hard to understand that sex can lead to pregnancy and disease. This is the kind of information you can get from a photocopied handout, not something that can only be learned through life experience.
I sure wouldn’t expect those particular girls to understand, since obviously everyone around them has failed to provide even the most basic sex education! But I wouldn’t judge all 13 year olds by their example.
What if a poor adult woman gets pregnant? Who will support the child?
Would it make sense to define having sex with poor people as “sexual molestation” and/or “statutory rape”?
Why would I expect anyone else to do so?
If your point is that it’s a bad choice for young teens to get pregnant, I agree entirely. If you’re saying it’s a bad choice for them to have sex at all because of the risk of pregnancy, that’s certainly a valid opinion too.
But I haven’t said they should be getting pregnant or even having sex. I’m saying that their consent is meaningful and should be respected by the law. They may consent to something that turns out to be a bad choice, but that doesn’t mean their consent is meaningless; if I sign up for a credit card at 30% interest, I’m making a terrible mistake, but no one will claim I didn’t really agree to it!
You missed the point. The woman may be poor, but she’s an adult, and is legally able to hold down a fulltime job. She is able to change her circumstances. She’s old enough.
But a 11 or 12 year old cannot hold down a full time job. CAN NOT. She’s (or he’s) too young. Unless you think she’s not?
Do you think that “informed consent” means that they can make a decision to do something, even if it means that there is NO WAY they can be really responsible for the consequences of their decision? At least not for several years? A poor woman can be responsible. But how can a child, unless you want to change current labor laws?
This subject really deserves its own thread, so I’ve started one:
Age restrictions and the consent of minors
yosemitebabe, I’ll respond to your post in the new thread.
One thing I’ve got to say about this is that if a victim says that they forgive Polanski for the rape I don’t think that means he should be forgiven. I think that’s very good for her, and very healthy that she can forgive. And I greatly admire her moral and psychological strength for being able to. But that, in no way, means that the attitude towards the crime should be “oh, well, the victim says she forgives him, it’s okay, we can forget this one” because we can’t. Doesn’t matter if George Bush (first person to come to mind) says he should be forgiven, that doesn’t mean, at least in my mind, that we should forget about it.
But yea, that’s just MHO, and something I had to toss in there
**Jamie