It doesn’t matter. The point is that a 14 year old doesn’t have anything a healthy, mature 21 year old would want. And if he’s not healthy and mature, he shouldn’t be having sex. Especially not unprotected sex.
It’s not a ‘fictional’ sense. Consent is a legal concept. We repeatedly define those under a certain age as being unable to consent in a meaningful way. They cannot consent to the dangers involved in alcohol consumption or smoking. They are also held not able to consent to the dangers involved in sex.
No, the point is that a 14 year old does not necessarily have a reliable sense of whether she wants to be a part of it. She may well be in a situation she is incapable of preventing things going forward. Similarly, the law, assumes that she cannot know for sure if she consents - we have statutory rape laws for that very purpose, we do not feel that children of certain ages are mature enough to consent to potentially life altering situations in any realistic, meaningful fashion.
I don’t say that sex with a fourteen year old is the same as sex with a comatose woman. I say that the law treats both of them as rape. There’s a difference between those two things. A comatose woman cannot consent. It does not matter that she voluntarily drank herself into that condition, or even if she had reason to think that a man might have sex with her while she was in that condition. Sex with a woman who cannot consent is rape, and so any man who has sex with a comatose woman has put himself in the legal and moral position or being a rapist.
14 year old girls also cannot, in the eyes of the law, consent. While you may not agree with that as being the level set, I refuse to believe that a 21 year old man did not know that law existed. While I do not know if he knew her exact age (though in the context of an ongoing relationship I would think it probable he did) I find it highly unlikely that he did not know she was underage, and by a significant degree. He therefore willingly put himself in a position where he is both legally and morally a rapist.
Stranger rapes, though constituting a very small minority of all attacks (though a much larger minority of reported attacks) tend to be the classic examples of what popular culture considers to be rape. They involve one or more men (usually) forcing a woman (usually) to engage in sexual intercourse aginst her will, either through the application of physical force, or by the threat of it. Acquaintance or date rape, on the other hand, occurs where a woman is compelled to engage in sexual intercourse by a man with whom she is engaged in a social relationship. It often does have a physical force element, but may not, and (massive generalization) such physical assaults tend to be of a lesser magnitude than those in stranger rape. This leads some critics to claim that it is less serious (see, for example, Katie Roiphe, The Morning After). The evidence that exists, in particular concerning PTSD, suggests that, as I have stated, the effects are not lesser, but are different.
Rape to me can be defined simply as an act of sexual intercourse with a woman who does not consent. Many states do have a physical force requirement, such as it seems you support. Interstingly, they do not have such a requirement for their theft statutes - taking someone’s wallet without violence is still a criminal offense. One state in particular, New Jersey, has recognized this. In In the Interests of MTS New Jerseys Supreme Court held that the act of unwanted penetration itself constituted sufficient force to satisfy the force element of rape.
The absence of a such a finding produces what are intolerable results. A force requirement, as you seem to think is necessary, produced the great case of Commonwealth v Mlarnich in Pennsylvania. A 14 year old girl was released from juvenile detention into the custody of a 65 (? don’t have the exact age) man and his wife. He told her that if she did not have sex with him, he would have her sent back to juvie, which he could do by revoking the supervision. He then proceeded to have sex with her, despite her cries of pain throughout the experience. He was acquitted of rape charges, because a threat of juvie was not physical force as required by the PA statute. Similarly in Montana, a high school principal told a 17 year old that she would not graduate unless hse had sex repeatedly with him. Again, no rape conviction was possible, as there was no physical force.
Those are real life cases of non-physically coerced sex that is not considered as rape. If the effect of ‘expand[ing] the definition of “rape” out to the point that a woman who engages in non-physically coerced sex is “raped”’ is to criminalize such activities, then I feel pretty comfortable supporting it. I’d argue that the ‘real world absurdity’ occurs when such actions are not considered to be rape. The absence of a force requirement does not create a rape where the woman changes her mind, any more than changing my mind about lending my neighbor my lawnmower makes him a thief.
If the guy knew she was only 14, then he deserves to be punished. HOWEVER, I think you should respect the mothers wishes and not report him unless she change her mind. (Which I hope she does)
Dang. I met to say, of course, that a woman changing her mind after the sex would not create a situation of rape regardless of the standard used. If a woman changes her mind during sex, then it is incumbent on her partner to cease the sex. There’s a recent decision in Illinois regarding this, which I could look up if you want. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the bugbear of false accustaions, all the evidence that I have seen suggests there is no differnce between false reporting in rape cases and other serious crimes, and further that it is very rare a false accusation is not spotted at the very early levels. (One source for this is Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will; if you want more, I can get you them when I get home.)
That isn’t something “she knows for sure” right away each time though. I sure didn’t “know for sure”. I thought that “willingness” constituted to giving in, and it wasn’t until years later that I realized that the resentment signalled something else. I was a late life child, and though my parents were pretty open about most things, they were only “halfway” open about sex. They told me to “wait until I found someone I loved” to have sex. I think they meant “someone you have married”.
Where did you get that from what I, at least posted? I didn’t make fun of this girl’s lack of education, in fact, I admitted I probably had less than she did. I think you are reading mockery where there is none. Many of us are posting with the recollection of what it was like for us at that age, and basing what we say on that. I, myself have experienced being a girl that young, and I wasn’t a virgin at that age either.
I also remember my classmates in EIGTH grade getting “blow by blow” details from another classmate’s “first time”, (right down to the color of the condom used) she was very proud, and bragged at least a week over it. I can remember things like: an underclassman cheerleader who’d had multiple abortions before she finished her Sophomore year, overhearing girls speaking of what they’d do if they got pregnant, or what more than one of them DID do, (this ranges from throwing herself down a flight of stairs to miscarry, to giving birth adn putting the baby up for adoption) graphic anatomical details of sexual partners discussed casually where anyone could hear. These are things I can recall, and that is why I posted the things I did.
astro Actually what you describe here:
is date rape in many states. Once the woman says “No”, (In at least one state, this applies even if he’s already put his penis inside of her, of that I’m almost certain.) the man is legally required to back off and desist. If he continues, and succeeds, than it’s rape, and he’s in legal trouble if she reports him.
I just wanted to be sure we’re not talking about the scenario of “I said “yes” because he seemed to be a big, rough guy, and I was scared to tell him no” being considered as after the fact “rape” of some sort, even though no expressed coercion other than the woman’s own non-verbalized fears were in play.
Sex between two people is obviously rape if it involves a direct and explicit threat of violence as the reason one party is submitting to it, however, moving beyond violence to not granting something a person wants (ie staying out of juvi or graduating) gets into slippery slope territory, because the ability exists to just say “no”, unless not granting the desired thing is life threatening or imperiling somehow, which is an argument that would have to be made and sustained in court based on the specific circumstances.
As a hypothetical, if a woman accepts the overture to have sex because she will get a better deal on something than the average customer, or will be more favorably considered for say, an acting job, is that rape?
It’s either rape or prostitution, I’m not certain which astro. Question for you, by your logic, was I raped at the age of 13, (go back and read, I posted the account here) or not? I feel now, that I was, because I WAS pressured, and even then, I was resentful. It wasn’t “forced”, and there was no hint of a threat of force, but I was emotionally hounded to the point that I gave in, because he wore me down, deliberately. I didn’t report him, and he wasn’t prosecuted, mostly because I thought I loved him, and didn’t have the courage to make that kind of a stand for myself. I probably should have at least told him off, when I felt I was forced. I at least got counseling, and have made a decent start on a recovery from it.
Interesting side note, I saw him years later, when I was 18, and he was 21, and he admitted to having the hots for a girl under the age of 16, she may have been 13. So, you tell me, was that guy right in the head? Was I raped? Each “case” is different of course, but don’t say that EACH time, a female who isn’t of legal age “consents” it isn’t rape either. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t, morally at least. Legally is a whole other matter.
As has been said previously, this country’s culture is warped, and needs a serious overhaul. The best that can be done for now, is that individual parents take the time to properly educate their children, with the aid of the internet, and try to help erase the “stigma” from the sex act itself. (Though even that’s been set back seriously with the FCC’s latest actions, but that’s another thread.)
Per your note I went back and read your referenced post quoted below. You feel you were “raped” because you were pestered into having sex? I don’t know you or your life, but based on the facts you related (ie he came on to me and pestered me to death for sex as “birthday present” for him and I finally gave in) to claim you were “raped” is borderline absurd, and to assert that this adolescent nonsense constitutes being “raped” diminishes the real trama of true rape.
Reporting is probably going to be moot.
If she is pregnant, she will require medical care. Any doctor worth his MD is going to figure out that a fourteen year old girl who is pregnant had sex. And, depending on what state she is in, that is, in itself a crime if her partner was old enough to prosecute. So he will probably be required to report it or risk his medical license. At which point mom and niece may decide to withhold 21 year old boyfriends name (and the state may go after mom).
Personally, I’d recommend reporting it and getting the bastards name on the birth certificate and establishing paternity. If she decides to parent the baby, the child support checks will come in handy. If she decides to make an adoption plan, paternity has to be established to terminate parental rights. Even if she aborts, the MD performing the abortion will be under the same legal obligations as a doctor who provides prenatal care. Her only hope to not have any interference is to miscarry early.
Look, they could pass a law defining a cow as a metal vehicle with seats and a steering wheel, but that wouldn’t change what a cow really is… and if you called a car thief a “cattle rustler” outside of a courtroom, you could expect not to be taken seriously by people who know “cow” is more than just a legal term.
Likewise, if you call an adult who has sex with a willing minor a “rapist” outside of a courtroom, don’t expect to be taken seriously by people who know “consent” is more than just a legal term.
The legal definitions of consent and (hypothetically) cow are both factual in a sense, because they’re written down in the law, but they’re also fictional, because they’re completely detached from reality.
I find that hard to believe. When I was 14, I certainly knew whether I liked being wherever I was and doing whatever I was doing. No one else had a better sense of whether I was willing to do something than I did.
There’s no indication that the girl in the OP, who snuck out on her own to meet this guy, was in that situation.
It’s a shame that the law is set up in a way that discourages pregnant teens from getting medical care. Who exactly are we supposed to be protecting again?
In Unwanted Sex, Stephen Schulhoffer deals with this specifically. He’s one of the foremost advocates of an affirmative consent standard in rape law, a position I support. Rather than requiring a person to say no, the requirement is placed on the instigator to ask permission in a situation. Anyway, he draws the line between these positions by looking if the victim had a right to the ‘benefit’ offered. The Montana 17 year old had a right to graduate high school (assuming her grades were sufficient). By requiring her to submit to sexual advances or have that right removed, the principal raped her. The actress has no right to the job, or at least no right to favorable treatment, and so an offer that she sleep with the director to be favorably considered is not rape under this standard. It is many other things, though. If the actress is denied fair consideration because she says no, on the other hand, then we are back to a denial of rights and so a rape situation.
In this case consent is a specific legal term. A law defining a cow as such would serve no rational government purpose. It also would fly in the face of the common meaning of the terms invovled. It is settled that a cow is not a car. It is not settled that a 14 year old can consent to have sex with a man that much her senior. In fact, I would argue that many people, possibly even a majority, would argue that such consent is not valid. So, if you chose not to take me seriously for using a legal term in a legal sense, I’ll live with your lack of serious consideration.
There’s a reason we set the age of consent at 18 (or where ever it is in what ever state). It’s because we make an overall assesment that the person below that age is not capable of making informed decisions about important aspects of his or her life. Of course, on one level, the 14 year old knows what she wants. Hell, even my 4 year old knows what he wants. But until a child reaches the level where we as a society view them as being capable of making those choices, then we do not view their actions as granting the necessary legal consent. And yes, that is hard on some who at 14 are much more mature and responsible and capable of consenting than an 18 year old may be. But the law has to draw a line to be effective, and if there is a sufficient governmental interest in controlling whatever evil the law is targetted to control, then the law is valid. And protecting the majority of 14 year olds, who I will go out on a limb and say are not capable of consenting (in a legal sense) to sex with an adult, in mind mind outweighs the limited restrictions on the small minority of not being allowed to go screw men 50% older than them.
And no, we don’t know the situation of this girl, but we make some assumptions. We assume under Miranda, for example, that a confession made without offer of counsel in a police station is coerced, if not directly, than by the nature of the surroundings and the power differential involved. The law makes assumptions - they may be wrong in individual cases, but the overall purpose of the law requires uniform application.
And agan, people seem to be avoiding the important element here. Her contribution to this is irrelevant, unless of course you can show that she deliberately mislead him about her age. He is 21. However important sex may seem to be to him, he is still an independent actor. And he chose to have sex with a girl who, I have no doubt, he knew was significantly underage. He put himself in that position.
Human sexual politics to date, since people have been writing on cave walls, has typically been predicated on the notion a male’s overt sexual advances being considered an invitation to have sex, and for tacit consent to be implied in the absence of resistance, and/or by direct and affirmative engagement of this invitation by the female.
In Schulhoffer’s view, this standard is insufficient and requires the man to specifically ask permission to have sex with a women (which I think most men do in one form or another), but for those other fairly common circumstances, where an advance without verbal permission is made, and is not rebuffed, and things progress to the point of intercoruse, the man could be guilty of “rape” if the woman did not specifically say “yes you may have sex with me” at some point in the process prior to intercourse?
Well… there goes the romance novel industry.
It serves the same purpose as calling the act in the OP “statutory rape”: Turning one class of criminals into another. If being a car thief isn’t bad enough, shazam! Now he’s a cattle rustler - look, he stole a “cow”.
If just having sex with a minor isn’t bad enough, shazam! Now he’s a rapist - look, he had sex with someone who didn’t “consent”. It’s much easier to paint someone as a dangerous predator who needs to be locked up for years, and tracked once he’s released, if you get to throw around the word “rapist” when you do it.
Well, you don’t need to go out on a limb to say they’re not legally capable of consenting. That part is spelled out in the law.
What is it about American 14 year olds that makes them so much less capable of knowing what they want than Dutch, Austrian, German, Italian, Spanish, Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese 14 year olds? If the legal notion of consent actually has any basis in reality, then shouldn’t we be shocked and saddened that our teenagers are so much less mature than teenagers in 41 other countries?
The primary consideration, especially on the part of the mom and the uncle, should be the effects on the girl’s life. Regardless of whether or not the “bastard needs his life ruined,” it’s still important to consider the effects of the criminal case on the girl. It may well be that pressing charges could be more harmful to the girl than not doing so.
I suspect that these concerns are related to the mother’s decision.
ps
What’s NAMGLA?
And who’re the “sick fucks” you’re referring to? This is The Pit, you can name names.
Why do you think that thye’r “sick fucks”?
Why bring the North American Merv Griffin Look-Alikes into this? What have *they *done?
Other than a mature body with all the hormones and desires that come with it, right?
Then I think if the girl in this case says she consented, or that it was her idea, your definition doesn’t fit.
I also wonder what you consider an act of sexual intercourse with a man who does not consent.
And in California, where if she changes her mind during sex but does not tell him that she has, he’s still supposedly a rapist.
Ah, a very heavily biased source from a very sexist author.
Have you ever actually tried things this way? Total mood killer. By the time all the consent questions are asked, it seems much more appealing to do taxes on a long form with only a pencil. If that’s how it’s going to be, why not draw up a contract and have both parties sign it in front of a notary?
Actually they don’t. The warning only has to be given at the time of arrest, not questioning, and if the person being questioned makes a spontaneous utterance, it’s not coercion. Things are not so black and white as you would have them.
So here’s me, jury member. I listen to both sides. I hear her maybe get on the stand and say she really did want to have sex with this guy and that she wasn’t coerced. I hear her perhaps tell the jury that she initiated things. Or I hear a lack of proof that he did coerce her, or force her in anyway. Suddenly to me it looks like a 14 year old girl and her older boyfriend making their own decision about what to do in private. So the prosecution keeps telling me that according to ‘the law’ she doesn’t know what she wants, and I remember my own experiences at 14 in which I knew exactly what I wanted and without anybody twisting my arm, I went out and did just that. I’m not convinced he deserves to go to prison and be labeled a sex offender, so I vote ‘not guilty.’
And in that instance I think the letter of the law is wrong, so I exercise my right as a juror to use a little known process called jury nullification. Course that could have all been avoided by not forcing the girl to go through with a trial.
I’m guessing it’s a play-on-words of NAMBLA, or the North American Man-Boy Love Association (I think that’s correct), an organization that promotes pederasty.
I guess it’s a spiel on NAMBLA - Nort American Boy Lovers Association. A lobby group who think that 50 year old men and 12 year old boys is just fine and dandy. I won’t link to their sick website, but I’m sure you can find it, should you feel inclined. I’d advise against it though.
I have no fish to fry in this debate, but I find it interesting. Given that most states in the US have an AoC at 18, with some possibilities to have it lower under certain circumstances, and that this is the highest I know of in the industrial world, I think it has a lot to do with what many of us in Europe perceive as double standards in the US. Church going, puritanical and the center of the world’s porn industry.
My WAG is that the AoC has to do with the notion that kids under 18 shouldn’t have sex (obviously, since it’s the law), and therefore, there’s no need for sex-ed in schools (hey, they’ll be out of high school by 18), and that the threat of prison should serve as a deterrant. Well guess what - it won’t. Once kids hit puberty, they’ll want to have sex, and some will have it. Is it good for them? Could it hurt them? Have they even thought about unwanted pregnancy or STD? Of course not. A kid in high school feels immortal, with a need to push the envelope and defy that stuffy adult world. It’s part of growing up, and part of that, for some, is having sex, because nothing makes you feel more like a grown up than having sex.
The younger generation has always tried to find something they can use as a revolt. Now, when we have parents that grew up with punk and had spikey hair and pins through the nose, fashion and music are no longer things that can serve. Sex still can. So not only do we have a new generation of kids with teen angst who’re horny as hell and can’t take it anymore, we have a generation who thinks that blow jobs is just a way of making out, it’s not really sex.
I don’t think a 14 year old girl or boy is mature enough to realize the consequences of having sex, be it with a person one or seven years older. But I do think that calling it rape and having the perp registered as a sex offender, will serve no good at all. The statistics I dug up, which is on page two, backs up my statement. Education, parents that take an interest in their kids and a different attitude might solve the problem.