This expression has been used before and it’s sort of creepy. Going to a bar illegally (which I often did, sans fake ID, about ten years before I ever came close to sex) is not the same thing as having sex. And you don’t get to enforce laws based on how ‘damaged’ or far gone you think the victim is. Even if they’re prostitutes who have sex every day and yet, by some miracle, can still be violated (which, I suspect, these laws are often in place for, as most prostitutes start as minors).
Since statutory rape is a crime of strict liability, mens rea is irrelevant. If it’s an accident, it’s a crime of negligence.
‘Not completely done developing physically, which may have an affect on some aspects of life’ isn’t the same as ‘cognitively impaired’.
You’re what, mid-40s? Your brain is in all likliehood as far away from your cognitive peak in your early 20s as that of any young teenager. You’re well along in the slow decline in reasoning and problem-solving that ends in dementia for some.
In fact, that might explain a lot about you. 
It should be illegal for anyone (including his wife) to have sex with him, seeing as the decline in reasoning renders him unfit.
So now you’ve got to make sure that whoever you fuck is older than thirty and younger than fifty.
No, it’s not “as far away.” Nice try, though. Cute, but still a fail.
Analogous to teens insisting they’re mature for their age? 
Sounds like denial to me.
Congratulations, you’ve asserted blandly the state of the current law in some jurisdictions. Bravo.
Doesn’t answer the OP or the discussion that followed, but I’ll take your blind restatement of the way things are instead of arguing that they should continue to be that way as an indication that you still got nothin’.
I’ll say it this way – the danmage to the child is the same whether the rape was accidental or not. The child was still raped.
If a 17 year old defrauds me into believing she’s 18 and I fuck her I’d hardly call it rape, regardless of what bullshit you conjure regarding her miraculous cognitive incapability to do wrong or form intent.
“Damage to the child”…again you insist on calling “legal minors” children when you apparently would refer to them as adults the year they reach the age of consent, which is in NO WAY CONSISTENT from state to state or country to country. And you ASSUME they are damaged by it. Really? In what way are you defining “damage,” and how do you differentiate between an adult’s “damage” due to underage fucking versus “kinkiness” developed past age 17?
Did it? I’ll be honest and admit I never followed the story after reading the headline.
Go me! Accepting the words in a newspaper and on tv as objective truth of any sort.
Do you have a handy cite for this claim?
So how about this. The law in my state (IIRC) is that a teen is legal to give consent at age 16, or at age 14 if their partner is within four years of them (Romeo and Juliet exception). 18 is the age of consent for “corruption of a minor” which in practice seems to only mean pornography and prostitution.
So do you believe the teenager is damaged in the following scenarios? Why or why not? Assume in all cases that the younger party is actively seeking out the sexual relationship, since that’s the only scenario (in my opinion) that merits a mens rea consideration on the part of the older person.
- 14 yr old has (legal) sex with another 14 yr old
- 14 yr old has (legal) sex with 18 yr old
- 16 yr old has (legal) sex with an 20 yr old
- 16 yr old has (legal) sex with 40 yr old
- 15 yr 364 day old has (illegal) sex with a 20 yr old
- 15 yr 364 day old has (illegal) sex with a 40 yr old
I’m trying to nail down exactly where and what you think the line ought to be here, and I’m expressly mentally replacing “child” with “teenager” in your responses–everyone has already agreed that no sane system would allow for the possibility of consent from the pre-pubescent.
Cite?
Read the cites that are already posted. It’s different parts of the brain, different functions and different levels. Judgement does not decline at 40. Neither does control of impulsivity or understanding of consequences. Any attempt to make a comparison is either facetious (which is the way I took it) or ignorant.
Neither does it go from 0 to 100 overnight as soon as someone turns “legal.”
Actually, there are people who ahve tried to argue that it’s a real possibility that someone could think an 11 year old is a 21 year old, so yes, there are people literally trying to make a loophole for fucking pre-teens.
There are no real lines. All legal lines have to be artificial, and they have to be drawn in a way to err on the side of protecting children rather than protecting the ability of adult males to get laid by bar pickups.
Damage is possible in every one of your scenarios, therefore it should legally be assumed that damage WILL happen in all of them.
It’s like drunk driving. There’s no guarantee that it will hurt anybody, but that doesn’t mean you don’t put a blanket ban on it anyway.
The younger the girl and the older the guy, the higher the potential for damage. The 40 year old raping the 15 year old obviously has a very high potential to cause damage, but even if (in one of the contrived scenarios we’ve seen posyed in these threads), the 15 year old wasn’t damaged, that doesn’t mean it’s therefore ok to open up the season on them. Most drunk drivers make it home without killing anyone. So what?
The artificial legal lines are there to prevent any chance of damage. If you don’t want a hardline age of consent, what do you propose we replace it with?
You have **two doctors **telling you that an 11 year old could look like she or he is **of the age of consent **(and have documentation to prove it).
I offered something but you didn’t respond to it.