No kidding. If I said that to my father-in-law I’d get knocked the fuck out.
Diogenes just so you don’t feel like this is a complete pile on, I agree with you. Cherish this, it may be the only time 
Consensual statutory rape is rape only because it’s legally defined as such. For instance, the OP’s friend wouldn’t be a criminal had he done the same thing in France where the age of consent is 15.
On the other hand, you’re using the words"perv" and “predator” and express outrage, which implies that your stance is a moral one, not a legal one. You can’t back a moral stance by legal arguments.
If you want to make the case that this guy’s actions are morally condemnable, surely, consent (or lack thereof) does matter. If you want to make the case that what he did was a crime, then you can point at the laws. But no one is disputing that.
Your position is similar to stating : “smoking pot is an awful and repugnant habbit”, and afterbeing called on that “It doesn’t matter whether it has adverse consequences or not, since it’s forbidden by law”. By simply stating it’s forbidden by law, you didn’t show that it is an awful and repugnant habbit.
You must chose one point of view or the other, the legal one or the moral one, and use appropriate arguments instead of adding apples and oranges.
When I said consent didn’t mean shit, I DID mean morally. MORALLY, consent doesn’t mean shit because a child does not have the cognitive or emotional ability to understand the consequences of her pseudo “consent.”
Whether it does or not has nothing to do with the age of consent. There’s an estimated 400,000 prostitutes in the US who are under 18.
Yeah, but it’s also a crime to patronize them, as well it should be.
It’s also a crime there if the John is at least 4 years older than the Jane. Haven’t you been paying attention?
Diogenes, if you’re willing to make sex with 15-year-olds be illegal, why not with 16-year-olds? 18-year-olds? 20-year-olds? Why do you draw the line where you do?
Metacom, my suggestion is similar to yours, but I think it’s pretty important that it be up to the defense to establish that the teen suffered no harm: this should be an uphill fight for the defense, not an easy defense to make. As for different paid experts, I’d suggest having a court-appointed psychiatrist who could make this evaluation based on a specific set of parameters.
Sure, you’ll get some psychiatrists weighted toward the defense and others weighted toward the prosecution, but that’d be no different from what you’d get with judges.
In my social circle growing up, it was common for teens to be having sex with folks many years older than them. I think the consequences of a teen seeing their older lover go to jail over the affair would have been far more psychologically damaging than any of the affairs themselves were. That’s not to deny that such situations are very harmful for some teens; rather, it’s to acknowledge that the exceptions are pretty common, and that it’d really fuck up both teen and adult for jail to enter into things.
Daniel
You’re avoiding the question, Dio. Aren’t Dutch moms and dads decent human beings?
Are you the one who will be the judge of other people’s moral behaviour?
And “teen prostitution” is just a bullshit phrase. 18+19 year olds are teens too.
A hint to you: Teen pregnancies, teen abortions, teens with STDs are way lower per capita in Holland than in the US. And they have their sexual debut at an older age.
Ain’t that strange?
Now, let’s fight ignorance here, even if it’s the pit. Convince me that you’re on logical and not emotional ground and show me where the US system is better.
Or don’t and just admit that your knee jerked so hard it made you dizzy.
That’s a silly question, haven’t you been paying attention?
Sam
When did I say the American system was better?
Frankly, the problem with the US system is that statch laws are hardly ever enforced.
As to Dutch parents, well any parents who are willing to prostitute their 13 year old daughters and allow them to be displayed in windows like cakes are not exactly people I want to be friends with.
That would still allow 18 year olds to purchase 14 year olds for sex. How is that not skeevy?
I should have read the whole thread before writing my previous post, once again, since what I wrote had been already said several times.
Anyway, the issue I had with your statement had nothing to do with the content of laws. You expressed outrage and condemned people who had sex with underage girls (using several times disingeneous tactics, like using the word “child” , asking people whether they should say the same for a 12 y.o., etc…).
My position is that moral condemnation is dependant on the circumstances. Someone having sex with a 25 y.o. may be an abusive piece of shit. Someone else having sex with a 15 y.o. might be above any reproach.
What should the law be is a totally different issue, and has no bearing on the morality or lack thereof of an action. You’re engaging us on the moral ground, so we respond in kind. Basically, we all say : “you know fuck about the case, so you can’t state it was immoral”, while you’re hiding behind a legal tree to shout “all people who break the law are pieces of shit, I don’t care about the circumstances”
You’re going so far that your comments become at the same time laughable and outrageous. In particular when stating that a woman who had sex with an older guy was abused, despite her saying she wasn’t and being now 50 years old. She spend all her life thinking she had consensual sex, but you know better than her what her relationship was like, what her life since was like, so fortunately you can enlighten her so that she can realize she was actually raped by a perv and has been suffering adverse consequences since, unknowingly.
I would point out also that you asked people whether they had “daughters”. It seems to me that the law applies also to underage boys having sex with older women. So, why should the sex of people’s children matter? Double standart, perhaps? The circumstances matter to you, maybe?
As several posters pointed out, you’re acting like a fundie : “It’s wrong and evil because the law says so”. And you don’t have much other options, because since you’ve decided that any person having sex with an underage girl in an evil perv and refuse to take any circumstances into account, you need some sort of arbitrary rule applying in all circumstances, and only the sacred books of laws can provide such a rule.
Once again, argue about laws, but then we all agree, or argue about morals, but then your “it’s always wrong” stance is ludicrous.
I assume it would be possible to draft laws criminalizing coercing or blackmailing someone in order to have sex.
In particular in the case of minor. I mentionned above that the age of consent in France is 15. However, it doesn’t apply to people who have authority on the minor ( a coach, a custodian, a judge, etc…). So a teacher having sex with a 17 y.o. would be prosecuted for statutory rape, blackmail about graduation or not. That would take care of any coerced sex with a minor situation.
Dio, your single-mindedness is bizarre.
Can you really not imagine a 15 year old capable of having a healthy sexual relationship with someone is his 20s, and vice-versa? Can you not imagine that a young man might sleep with a somewhat younger woman, make a mistake, and still be acting in good faith?
That relationships involving these kinds of age differences are frequently exploitive is not in question, nor is it the issue. You have not offered a single argument to support your apparent contention that these relationships can never be normal and (at the least) not harmful. Instead, you’ve simply repeated, in various forms, your mantra: “Men in their 20’s who bang 15 year old girls are predatory scumbags- no exceptions.” This is neither helpful nor accurate.
Huh. Well, if I may be TMI for a moment…
I had sex the first time when I was 16 and my boyfriend was 19.
Obviously, he’s a sexual predator! I was horribly taken advantage of, despite consenting to the act. He’s a disgusting, scum-sucking pig-dog who deserves all the horrible things that happen to him in prison. I hope he rots in his cell till eternity.
Oh wait. The age of consent here is 14. Nevermind.
Of course it is possible. I was simply responding to the situation as is at the moment. There is a major misunderstanding about what the rape laws cover in the various states of the union. And when someone says sexual harrassment laws can cover a situation that in my mind should be covered by the rape laws, I feel it is necessary to point out that sexual harrassment law is not criminal.
As for the argument as to those in positions of power coercing, I have been a long time supporter of amending rape laws to deal with such situations. I don’t see why it is necessary to abolish the concept of an age of consent to have that as well. I’ll be honest and admit the only thing I know about French law is that I know nothing about French law. I don’t feel equipped to comment on that nation’s rape statutes, especially without reading them first.
You’re not debating, you’re frothing at the mouth. I’m on your side (sort of) in the political scale from left to right, but I’m beginning to see how some of the conservative dopers get exasperated with your antics, if it’s like this to be on the receiving end when you discuss politics.
Can you give me a single cite where it’s clear that 13 year old girls sit in the infamous window displays in the red light district in Amsterdam?
And can you tell me what the age of consent should be? Not how it’s enforced, just draw that line for us
To me the answers would be , no never, and yes I can see that there may be a mistake made sometimes.
I cannot see how someone in their twenties who intentionally goes after 15 year olds isn’t a predator and a scumbag.
It seems that I was misinformed. I once saw a claim on some political talk show (I don’t remember which one) that most of the prostitutes in Amsterdam were under 16. A little research shows that prostitutes must be over 18 to work legally. I stand corrected.
I’m someone who’s in favor of a blanket “age of accountability” for everything…drinking, driving, voting, fucking, going to war and getting married. I think it should be illegal to stick your dick in anyone who isn’t a legal adult. If you’re really in love, too bad. True love waits, yo.
I would allow a gap of three years or less to be a misdemeanor. Any more than that is a felony.
And let’s not forget that fucking makes babies. If we don’t think a 15 year old is mature enough to vote, drive or drink, then why should she be allowed to parent a child?