Statutory rape

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Asguard, Jun 16, 2008.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    At the risk of being labled as sexist i was really pissed off at the atitudes desplayed in another thread "at what age should sleep overs stop"

    Someone posted an artical of a mother who was charged with having sex with her son's friends (aged 14 and 15) and everyone was making jokes about it.

    I have always found the way the courts (and sociaty in general) treats women who rape under aged boys differently to the way it treats men who rape under aged girls.

    For starters it perperates the myth that women never want sex which is total bullshit (i know this for a fact because my partner keeps bitching at me that we dont have enough sex) but secondly it implies that males dont need the same legal protections as girls do.

    I have never seen any nerological argument that says boys brains mature faster than girls do (actually quite the oposite) and statitory rape laws were set up to protect those who sociaty feels are unable to make a rational choice where potentually life long conquences arise from the decision.

    So aparently younger than 16, a girl is not ready to understand aids, hep, herpies or to raise a child but a MALE is?

    what shear and utter idiocy is that.

    Thankfully the police and the courts are starting to change there atitudes in relation to this and are starting to treat the crimes as equal. This is evidenced by an australian women who was charged in a sting for atempted kidnaping ect by US police for going to the US with the intention of starting a sexual relationship with an under aged boy. However the media treated it like this women was a political prisioner of starlin. She knew the age of concent and she knew he was under it and she still went, she deserved to have the book thrown at her
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    A lot of that has to do with the newness of charging women who have sex with boys. You can't change attitudes overnight.
    My son had a classmate who's mom went to jail for sleeping with her son's friends. She deserved the prison time.

    I was wondering if a 13 yr old boy has to pay child support to a woman who molested him and got pregnant.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    I know its very upsetting. If a man has sex with a girl its horrible and the girl is ruined forever and... but if a woman does it to a boy the boy was just lucky or some other nonsense.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That's an exaggeration but it's true to a great degree, and that's the problem. It's just one of those Venus/Mars things. It's far more likely that a girl will grow up with emotional problems from it. But it's every boy's dream come true, for an adult woman to come on to him. Not only would he never complain, he'd be bragging about it. All a woman has to do to be guilty of statch is to not hit the boy over the head with a brick when he comes on to her!

    In times past it was not unheard-of for a father to take his son to an adult hooker, to teach him how it's done.

    I'm sorry, but as a man who was once a teenager, I think it's total bullshit to assume that women and men should be treated the same for statch. Boys and girls are different and we need to accept that reality.

    When I was a kid there was no such thing as "sex education" and it was not only something my parents didn't talk about, but they actually lied to me about it to shut me up. Boy did I grow up with some weird notions and hangups! My life would be so much better if some kind adult woman had "initiated" me.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    im sorry but this is just a compleat falicy. As a 13 year old were you capable of understanding what hep was and how to protect against it?
    what about aids?
    what abour herpies?

    How about caring for a kid and all that goes with it?
    or even just understanding what methods of birth control protect against what and what they dont protect you against? what methods are most effective? what to do if birth control fails?

    THESE are the reasons we protect the young from sex, it has nothing to do with what we think of hugh heffner getting it on with an 18 year old.

    Just because a 13 year old MIGHT be able to move a car without killing himself or someone else is no reason for the law not to prevent 13 years olds from driving.

    Oh and as for "in times past", im sorry but in "times past" it was not unheard of for a 12 year old girl to be married to a 30 year old guy and basically sold as her fathers property. Im sure you dont want to go back to those "good old days"

    It was also normal for a girl just menstrating to be pregnant, and for people to die by the time they were 40.

    Just because things happened in the past doenst make them in ANY way right. There are 2 clear choices

    Either the law about statitory rape is removed compleatly or modified down because we are saying that 13, 14, 15 year olds (pick whatever age you like) are quite able to understand ALL the risks involved in sexual activity or female offenders get EXACTLY the same treatment as male offenders both in the courts and in the media.

    Oh and as for it doing no harm younger adolesants tend to cling to there first sexual partner (be them male OR female). This is fine when both are young adolesants as they grow out of it but what if your are a young adolesant boy with a child to a 30 year old?
    There was a case in the US (i think, forgive me this was a while ago and im trying to rember the details) where a teacher molested her student and got pregnant. She was sent to jail and gave birth in jail. The kid (only 13 when the events happened) thought he was inlove with her and they got married when she got out (i think he was 17 by this stage but im not sure). Now tell me HONESTLY that this is an equal relationship, that this boy isnt going to regreat not being able to go to uni because he now has to work at McDonalds to surport his unemployable wife (she got listed as a sex offender, and delisted as a teacher as she should have been).

    Orleander, i do wonder if they enforce paternity responcabilities on these children as well. It would hardly seem to be justice but then the whole way this matter is treated isnt just so why would that be
     
  9. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Fuck more, post less....

    The EASY to understand difference comes from BIOLOGY, no shit. Unless the woman gives Viagra to the boy and brutally rapes him, hurting him, the sex is consensual and pleasurable for the boy, not very likely causing psychological damages. Not to mention a 14 year old boy is most likely physically STRONGER than an average woman, thus the use of force is not very likely.

    That is not necessery the case for a young girl, even if the sex is consensual...

    Ask the average 14 year old boy and that is their wet dream, to be seduced by an older woman....
     
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Why, again, do we "protect" the young from sex? Wouldn't education be a better alternative? Also, do you believe there should be any age limit, or rationality to statutory rape? How about nine year olds, should they be eligible to "choose"?

    It is not right that a teenager can have sex today, because they are seventeen (for example, assuming 18 as the law), but not tomorrow, because it is their birthday, but how do we address the other side of the coin as a society? Some sort of exam perhaps? Akin to a driver's license?

    I don't know the answers, just know that this is a sticky problem....
     
  11. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    how about simply removing all age discrimination laws and letting parents decide. these things have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

    laws are an attempt at making a set definition of right and wrong, which there can never be. everyone is different and so are the 'illegal' situations we find ourselves in. ive been in both situations where ive been wronged even though no crime was committed, and situations where ive committed crimes without wronging anyone.
     
  12. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Idaho, Montana, Delaware, Iowa, Mass.South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming have different age limits for boys and girls in consensual sex.

    http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

    Looks like they are protecting boys more, because in those states they give 2 more years for them to mature...

    Interestingly, in South Carolina the age of consent for girls is 14..
     
  13. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Agreed. Totally. Woot. What then should take the place of laws?

    What about insane parents, does this imply that children of such unions are not deserving of some form of protection? Or is the percentage so "miniscule" that we should just ignore it?
     
  14. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    I'd love to see some sort of evidence for this.
     
  15. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    14 year old girls don't fantasise about their handsome male teachers, huh? HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Sure, whatever.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The boundaries of sanity?

    This solution runs up against a consideration of what constitutes insane. Anecdotally, I recall a girl I knew some years back. At fourteen, she lived with a foster family; the story goes that at age 11, she was betrothed by her parents' will, to the point that they even let her future groom come over and sexually abuse her at night. Sounded pretty unusual to me, but then I think of situations where young men are allegedly cleared out in order to keep them from competing with the old men in pursuit of young girls, and, well, suddenly C's story doesn't sound quite as insane as it did before. I mean, it still sounds insane, but compared to other insanity ....

    Less anecdotally, we might then revisit a literal historical footnote:

    The statute book of Massachusetts makes ten years the age at which a female child is supposed to have discretion enough to part with virtue. But the same statute book holds that no person, man or woman, of any age, or any degree of wisdom or experience, has discretion to be trusted to buy and drink a glass of spirits, on his or her own Judgement! What an illustration of the legislative wisdom of Massachusetts!

    (Spooner, accent added)​

    So we have in American history the proposition that a ten year-old girl could give consent, even if that consent be bought. Quite clearly, we have come a long way since Spooner's day, but the proposition serves to adequately illustrate the challenges of delineating sanity.

    Even more than buying a ten year-old's consent with money or trinkets and baubles, what of duress? Can consent be properly attained if a child feels compelled to give over to a perception—whether real or not—of parental authority and pressure? At what point does a parent's influence in Vslayer's proposal breach the limits of sanity?
    _____________________

    Notes:

    Spooner, Lysander. Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. 1875. LysanderSpooner.org. Viewed June 16, 2008. http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

    See Also:

    Associated Press. "Fugitive sect leader arrested near Las Vegas". MSNBC.com. August 29, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14569632/
     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    can i please point out that this thread isnt a debate into what age sexual contact should be alowed but rather the atitudes towards sexual contact with people who are defined by law as unable to concent.

    There is a huge problem with laws of concent in general which is widly agnolaged, that being the fact that some people younger than that age do have the mental capacity to handle what goes with sexual activity and alot of people NEVER reach that level. However its the best solution we currently have that provides certianty (rather than picking someone of either gender up and then 6 months latter being charged with rape because the courts find that after the fact the person wasnt able to concent even though you acted in good faith)

    If you want to debate that make your own thread, stick to the topic which is why female sexual abusers treated differently
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    On matters of relevance to the question at hand

    Certainly you may. I would suggest, though, as a counterpoint, that the two concepts are interrelated, perhaps inextricably.

    There is, for instance, what is generally described as a double-standard: a male engaging in a lot of sexual intercourse has long been regarded with an air of admiration, while a female having a lot of sex is considered of ill repute.

    Curiously, in the case of South Carolina, the age of consent for a woman is set constitutionally by a 1999 amendment (see Article III, Section 33). I have not yet found information regarding any prior standard, but it is worth noting that III.33 pertains specifically to women. Comparatively, it appears that the age of consent for males is set by statute (see Title 16, Chapter 15, Article 1, Section 140); I have not located the date of enactment of this statute. Additionally, specific statute (Title 16, Chapter 3, Article 7, Section 659) refuses a common law presumption that a male under the age of 14 is incapable of committing rape. I have not found any similar statute or reference to common law pertaining to the age at which a female is allegedly incapable of committing rape.

    All of this pertains to certain presumptions that some might describe as intuitive, instinctive, or even visceral. Intuitively or instinctively, at least, the (double-) standard pertains to the fact that men deliver and women receive seed. That is, a woman can become pregnant. Viscerally, people seem to regard in different contexts the acts of depositing and receiving or holding seed. Long tradition suggests that a woman is made unclean by the reception of semen into her body, most specifically into the vagina.

    Additionally, as any who remember the social superstitions of school days, what once was considered "loose" morals has transformed into the undesirability of a "loose" vagina. One of the colloquial prizes of deflowering a young woman is the "tight" sensation of penetration.

    The effect of these presumptions is that it is considered more harmful to be penetrated or receive seed than it is to penetrate or deliver seed. Add to that the issues discussed by Marie and Fraggle:

    One of the questions that arises is to what degree the emotional problems for the female result from either social stigma or genuine psychosomatic conflicts. Certainly social standards foster the notion of every boy's dream come true. I remember, personally, reflections of guilt and, for lack of better, sin in the post-orgasmic lull of my early masturbatory sexuality; it is not, in my opinion, beyond possibility—in fact, it seems likely—that in some cases a boy's psychosomatic conflicts about early sexuality will be suppressed in favor of the social standard°, e.g., the double-standard.

    Whatever anthropological or evolutionary merits the double-standard might bear are generally perverted, according to human will, in their practical manifestations. Standards upheld for the fact of tradition tend to see their contexts transformed according to the circumstances of the times. If, indeed, for every thing there is a season (Ecc. 3.1), we must consider the context of that season. While I am not much for tattoos, for instance, it is merely an aesthetic thing; this is far different from the Biblical prohibition against tattoos (Lv. 19.28). In its season, such a rule makes sense even with what modern rationalism would consider a silly justification ("I am the Lord"). Leviticus is attributed to Moses, said to be written during the Hebrew years in the desert following the exodus. When wandering around in the middle of nowhere for forty years, extraneous wounds to the flesh really do seem a bad idea. Sanitary challenges contribute to a number of specific rules, including removal for certain periods after specific biological functions such as bowel movements.

    And much as modern first-world civilization can account for the sanitary risks of tattooing, so also it seems reasonable to reevaluate the season of the sexual double-standard. Improved prophylactic protection, safer abortion procedures, and new medical treatments for venereal diseases (including cures for some) transform the context of sexual mores persisting for the fact of tradition. The rise of romantic marriage to prevail in Western society over the political and socioeconomic marital traditions also alters the context of traditional moral assertions.

    What modernity brings is twofold at least, engaging both the dilution of traditional standards and the transformation of their contexts. Yet these oft-superstitious assertions persist on the merit of tradition. While it is certainly arguable, indeed almost assured, that the resulting isolation of superstitious tradition is not the whole explanation of the difference about how Western society views heterosexual sex crimes perpetrated by men and women, I would suggest that the accused double-standard regarding sexual promiscuity is a vital, persuasive, and perhaps dominant component. Certainly, we cannot ignore it.

    As such, consideration of ages of consent and the rationale for diverse standards seems powerfully relevant, and the task is not to dismiss these aspects of the discussion, but rather to bring them back to an applicable context.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° a boy's psychosomatic conflicts about early sexuality will be suppressed in favor of the social standard — While this is not the topic for deeper exploration of this specific assertion as such, the suppression of these conflicts would certainly lend toward misogynistic manifestations in later life; long justification according to what is essentially a superstition will inevitably affect perspectives and outcomes, although those results will vary from person to person according to circumstance.

    Works Cited:

    South Carolina Constitution. Viewed June 16, 2008. http://www.scstatehouse.net/scconstitution/scconst.htm

    South Carolina Code of Laws. Viewed June 16, 2008. http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/statmast.htm

    Bible: Revised Standard Version. Updated February 18, 1997. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

    Grace Institute. "Overview of the Old Testament". Fall, 2005. Viewed June 16, 2008. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/prophet/overview-1.html
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    tiassa you know im a huge fan of yours but i have to say

    WHAT THE FUCK are you going on about?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    When did I say that, idiot? And you missed the point anyway...
     
  21. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The short answer was already given, because of biological reasons. As I also pointed out several states have different male/female consent age, for good reason. because the abuse issue is completely different for boys and girls...
     
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    actually there not in anyway different, technically you could say the risks are higher for males if abortion services (as well as the morning after pill) are being properly provided because they have no say if a child is born or not no matter how old they are when abused.

    Also your denigrading women, as lepustimidus said women are as sexually oriantated as men are and there brains actually develop faster than a male brain
     
  23. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    i am a very big fan of the age of concent, and in UK its 16, but it should be down to education and not left to the perants, some mums and dads alike, find it very difficult to talk to they're kids about sex because they're mums found it difficult, we should have more sex education classes in school and less inset days!

    children were 11, 10 having kids many years ago because it was ulikely that they would survive child birth or die soon after it, or even not live to be very old, but that is all differant and we should stop thinking like we are in the stone ages, children need to be protected from all sorts of people, so i think the age of concent is good, if we lowered the age of concent, then an adult can argue that the 10yr old girl wanted to have sex, while she is calling rape,

    but what i want to know is, why does the world all have differant ages of concent, do children grow up faster in some other countries than they do in the UK?
     

Share This Page