When I read topics like this, two things always come to mind:
“Cherry Hill Park”, an amusing little ditty by Billy Joe Royal, about a young girl who bangs ‘all the boys’ ‘till way after dark’. The town pump, age uncertain, perhaps 16? - brings to mind a severely sexually abused young girl acting out. Oh, maybe she is 16 and has that healthy, ravenous sexual appetite all the boys dream of a girl possessing. Maybe she’s so gotta have it she tells her parents she’s going to the library or to babysit, and instead is open for business in the park. Way after dark. This song bugs me no end. It sounds sick and wrong, I’m sorry. (oh, and she finally leaves with ‘a man with money’ to embark on a profession career, IMO.)
The scene in Animal House with one of the guys and the girl who do the deed near the end of the movie in a football field and she casually tells him, “I’m 13” and he has the grace to blanch in dismay.
As mentioned by other posters, we get this idea. So, what specifically, in terms of practical steps, can one do to “check” a lady’s age? Use a private investigator? Take her fingerprints and send them away for a background check? Can I take her to a police station and get an age and competency background check done on her right there and get a signed form from a cop that says “verified over age of consent <3”?
So suppose I’m in the situation described in the OP, and I want to do what is right and check her age. I know that doing underage girls can be seriously harmful to them and I want to make sure I don’t cause such harm. I honestly want to protect children and honor the law but not be a Paranoid Paddy. Give me the procedure for doing such a “careful” check. I want specific actions, lookups, numbers to call, documents to mail away for, etc.
The author writes two things that seem contradictory to me :
and :
If the lack of consent of the rapist isn’t a defense, how could stating that he was raped by fraud be a defense?
It seems to me that this concept of “adult impersonation constituting rape by fraud” only results in having the two partners being guilty of rape (in the same way a minor can be guilty of the statutory rape of another minor, despite him too being underage and legally unable to consent).
IOW, I’m not exactly sure how it would improve the situation. Let’s assume consensual sex between a 20 yo and a 15 yo credibly lying about her age, the parents of the minor bring charges of statutory rape against the adult, the adult counterattacks with bringing charges of rape by fraud against the minor, and both end up in jail and as sex offenders ?
It still seems to me that that abolishing strict liability would be a much better and much simpler way to go.
In common law jurisdictions, age is not normally a ground on which rape by fraud can rest. It’s generally limited to identity (pretending to be the victim’s husband, for example) or some sort of official capacity (say, pretending to be a gynecologist.)
And there was a case in the news a while back about an underage girl who was arrested for taking naughty pictures of herself. The reason that child pornography is illegal is because it constitutes a form of sexual abuse. So this girl, who was legally incapable of understanding the nature of sexual activity to the extent allowing her to meaningfully make her own decisions about sexual behavior is potentially facing charges for a sexual abuse charge (production of child pornography) that requires intent. So you can be competent enough to abuse yourself and be sent to jail and labeled as a sex offender for life for doing so, but incompetent to be abused by yourself such that you didn’t really understand what you were doing to yourself and thus couldn’t really consent? Where can I get some of what the prosecutor was smoking?
Yes, but the guy argues that it would be a valid ground, amongst many other things by comparing it to the reasonning used in the situations you describe.
I still think that even if he’s right, it would only compound the problem.
Last time I checked, abortion doesn’t cause cancer. That’s been thoroughly debunked by the medical community and only a few pro-life zealots claim it does. And second, a teenager should not be getting married, pregnant or not. A fourteen-year-old wouldn’t be permitted to get married, in fact.
Unfortunately, that is not completely correct. In Texas and a few other states with permission of a parent or guardian a fourteen-year old may legally get married. It’s a law that might have made sense in the state’s distant rural, agricultural past, but it is still on the books and occasionally used.
Wow, it’s a good thing that nobody said that then.
It increases the RATE of cancer. It’s a risk factor. For cervical cancer, specifically. They (whoever sued) even won a case against planned parenthood.
I never said 14 year old. Don’t add in things just because you don’t like what I said. I meant more generally anybody inadvertently pregnant.
In my experience blue state people preach an extreme tolerance and liberalism (in the literal sense), but actually practice extreme othering and judgementalism, and value the self as opposed to community, and take conservative (in the literal sense) life-planning values to the extreme, that is endless education before work, unacceptance of physical work, you know, the eloi syndrome. There’s more to it than that
But like I said, that has been my experience
That’s what I was trying to say
I can’t even remember what that whole point was for, I know I was using it for something else I was saying above.
No, no it doesn’t increase the rate, either. Do you have a cite for this alleged case? :dubious: Because I’m flat out calling it bullshit.
And you still talked about a teen pregnancy, and said that one should get married. Saying that the solution to a teen pregnancy is marriage is ridiculous.
No I didn’t. I was talking about pregnancy generally, I don’t thinkI even said teen pregnancy.
And from what I’ve read, they actually won a court case on the cervical cancer thing, which is good enough for me. That’s not to say that courts are always right about that stuff, but they’re not always wrong either, and a court case generally implies there’s some evidence. The case may have been appealed and then remanded, I don’t know. But logic would also dictate that creating huge changes in the crazy engine that is a woman’s reproductive organ, and especially inducing hormonal changes, wouldn’t be too healthy. The point was it’s just a microcosm of our culture’s extreme views on putting health below vague metrics of “success”.
Look, just stop. It was a side point. You’re putting words in my mouth, but the whole thing was a side point in the first place. Why are you jagaloons pressing on one stupid ancillary point? Just stop.
Because you made a bullshit claim – there is no known evidence that abortion causes or raises the risks of cancer – and then when called on it, refused to provide any data or proof of it. BTW, I did a google search with the words “cervical cancer planned parenthood” and the ONLY articles that came up where about SCREENINGS for cervical cancer, and the HPV vaccine. Planned Parenthood doesn’t just perform abortions – they also provide women’s healthcare, such as pap smears, pelvic exams, etc. It said jackshit about any lawsuits.
And yes, you said TEEN pregnancy:
So if “ms teen preggo” doesn’t refer to teen pregnancy, what DOES it refer to?
And don’t make it an argument, and then whine when people question it. Calling it a “side point” doesn’t cut it.
FYI, I just looked upthread.
YOU jagaloons started focusing on teen pregnancy and marriage and shit when I was just trying to make a broader cultural point about raising kids, and tried to mis-interpret what I said/put words in my mouth