A suburban Atlanta woman is currently being prosecuted for statutory rape. Her crime? Having sex with a 13 year old boy, at a time when she was 20. She got pregnant. They got married. She is now 21 and he is 14.
Call me sexist, but I feel much less outrage at this woman’s conduct than I would if the genders were reversed. There’s no question that what she did violates the letter of the law (the law being gender-neutral). But let’s be honest with ourselves: wasn’t the law really passed to protect young women from sexual predation by older men, and not vice-versa?
Do y’all think the woman should be prosecuted? Would you feel differently if the genders were reversed? Should the law be gender-neutral? (Come on you closet sexists! Admit it!)
What would be more interesting is if the man were 20 and the woman had been consenting (but not of a legal age) . . . a lot of people would say, perhaps, that she was forced into it. With the guy being younger, probably some of those people won’t be think he wasn’t consenting.
Newsflash: men can be raped. By women.
The law doesn’t say, if I read correctly, that statutory rape or other charges magically don’t apply if the genders are reversed.
On a completely unrelated note, I wonder how close this guy was to being the youngest father in history.
The law is gender neutral, which is why she was charged. I doubt that the boy is complaining but the law is the law. If the charges get dropped against the 20 year old woman, then that sets a really bad precedent.
Yes, yes, I know the law is gender-neutral. (It has to be, for Constitututional reasons.) That’s not the issue up for debate.
The issue:
Do we have as strong a moral objection to a 20-year-old woman having sex with a 13-year-old boy as we would if the genders were reversed? If not, why not?
I would say that I do believe she should be prosecuted. This boy got her pregnant, and while he may be peachy with it now, 5 years down the road he may realize what he’s done and how that will place limitations on his life, and he may not have the maturity to deal with it. If he runs then, what will happen to the mother and the child? And if he stays, will he be responsible enough to care for that child and be a good father to it?
I read the article too. Reminded me of the thing a couple years ago with that teacher who mothered a child with one of her students. He was around the age of the boy in this case, too.
And on why the law was passed: It’s probably for the reasons above, as well as the fact that more than one teenager is usually involved in these cases. At my school last year (Jesus, every time I post something on here it seems to be “Well at my school this happened…”, and I apologize) they said statuatory can be enforced for people holding hands. I found that interesting…maybe some people out there actually think laws affect libidinous teens. Ha!
One moral objection I’d have about an adult woman having sex with a 13-year old boy, would be that the woman should protect the kid from consequences that she is fully aware of, but which he might not fully grasp at his age. In this case, fatherhood. Even if she had taken the pill, he may incur long term emotional consequences. If this were a 17-year old, maybe it wouldn’t be so clear-cut, but for a 13-year old I think it is.
The assumption behind the position that it’s okay to have sex in such a situation, seems to be the fact that the boy consented to it, and presumably enjoyed it. Aside from the fact that similar arguments could be made in man-with-girl situations, it’s also irrelevant. Even if pleasurable, the experience can have consequences that one party can’t fully appreciate, while the other can. That’s what I think makes it unethical.
And prosecuting her will help…how? He’ll still have the same obligations.
I’m not disagreeing, though. She shouldn’t have done it, IMHO. But the only good that will come of prosecuting her will be to make an example of her. (That’s reason enough, I guess.) But if she goes to jail, then he’ll be left alone to care for the baby. (His family would probably help out, I hope.)
Laws affect everyone. That is what equality means. Don’t like it? Go to China. Laws are much more selective over there.
Statutory rape is based on the premise that there are some things a minor simply cannot consent to. For exmaple, sex. Why? Because sex entails some kind of aftermath. Be it abortion or, in this case, carrying the child to term, a 14-year-old cannot hope to provide for a family. And in the eyes of the law, a 14-year-old is not competent to make such a decision. So the law applies.
And if she says she’s on the pill but she’s lying . . . much more severe emotional/psychological damage.
Rysdad, one would hope the mother’s family would help.
I don’t know what her punishment should be. Babies need both parents, but a bad mother is worse than no mother, sez I. Apart from having sex with an 8th grader, what kind of person is she?
Well, sure. Hers, too. I was just flashing back to the Mary Kay LeTourneau thing when the baby (babies, eventually) ended up with the father and his mother.
Am I correct in assuming that she is being prosecuted for the sex that occurred before the marriage? The article states that sex with someone under the age of 16 who is not your spouse is the crime. If they’re married, then they’d have to be prosecuting her for the sex that occurred before the marriage, right?
An interesting question would be whether the boy will be held legally responsible for the baby? i.e. when he turns 18 will be have to provide child support if they are separated?
I don’t see how he can be, since the foundation of our laws concerning children is that they are not able to give informed consent. On the other hand, is that fair to the child?
Just because one case is more common than the other does not mean the law is intended only for the more common case. Also, even if the law was inspired more by predatory men than women, they made a choice to draft the law to handle both genders neutrally. The law doesn’t state that it is illegal for men to have sex with women under 16, it states that it’s illegal to have sex with anyone under 16. Your logic seems to state “who cares what the law actually says, since we all know what inspired it”. Can’t say I agree with that.
What really bothers me is that marriage is apparently allowed with someone too young to have sex with. That makes no sense at all. The arguments for the statutory rape law are that people under 16 are too immature to understand the consequences, protect themselves, etc. So why do we think they’re mature enough to get married? This could also be seen as a form of predation: just bulldoze the girl into marrying you and you’re OK?!?
Maybe this is my chance to share the fact that I was “raped” at the tender age of 16 by a 19 yr old woman. Can’t say the experience was unpleasant. Not as extreme a case as the one mentioned, but definitely the sort of thing that could lead to jail time were the sex roles reversed (even if I’d wanted to press charges, I doubt she’d have gotten more than a slap on the wrist).
I don’t think that what she (the Atlanta woman) did was right, but if she was pretty and nice enough I wouldn’t have complained if I was the boy. If the kid should be protected from anything, it would be a paternity suit.
We say that kids don’t have the capacity to make the choice to have sex, but the do it all the time anyway. Something tells me they know more than we give them credit for.
Why SHOULD it be any different? Now, personally i think Stautory rape laws are stupid & futile, but this come more under child molestation. It is wrong, either way. I suppose you thing a wife beating her husband is ok, right?
Well, it sounds like she royally screwed up this kid’s life – what on earth is he going to do with a wife and child at 14?! Even if she hadn’t gotten pregnant, I doubt that any 13-year-old, male or female, is equipped to deal with the emotional fallout from a sexual relationship with a much older person.
If anything, a 13-year-old boy is probably much less capable of saying no to sex than a girl of the same age. And if a person is not in a position to refuse, it’s rape. I see no reason to assume that it’s always the females who need to be protected.