Statuatory Rape: AKA Jailbate.

"...And despite what you may think, teenagers are not children. They're not adults either, but they're somewhere between children and adults."

Right, but they are all minors in the eyes of the law. I bring up child molestation for the shock effect and because when a person is "somewhere between children and adults" we should err on the side of safety...consider them more child than adult.

"I think alot of people might be scared to disagree for fear of being called perverts."

I'm glad you mentioned that...and who would call them perverts? Most people...the majority of the population that I mentioned in my post, and there is a good reason for it.

 

Rape is still rape and it's very wrong and shouldnt happen. It's just as bad as molesting a child. It gives a person a distrust in people that is very hard to get over, and they are constantly wondering what they could have done to stop it though they know it's not they're fault.

 

I don't see how this last post applies to statutory rape. Statutory rape is concensual, you know, otherwise it would just be rape. To say that an 18 year old who has sex with his girlfriend of 17 is the same as molesting a child is pretty ludicrous really. I'll assume that you weren't clear on the discussion, but please reply nonetheless.

By the way, does anybody know how many females have been found guilty of statutory rape in the last year? I bet it's very very low.

 

it's probably low because it's not talked about. The amount of girls I know that were pregnant before the age of 16 is stupid

(btw sorry about before I kinda went off on one coz I got VERY strong feelings about anything like this)

 

I have a few other questions about the law that maybe someone can answer.

First of all, do the parents of the underage have to press charges? Or is it completely up to the state?

Secondly, if found guilty of statutory rape, does the defendant than have to carry the "sex offender" label around their whole life? If s/he does, I have a real problem with that, especially in the borderline 18/17 boyfriend/girlfriend scenarios.

The reason I ask about females is because I think parents would react differently to their daughter seeing an older guy than their son seeing an older girl. I think the state would also be prejudiced to this.

 

I dont know because
1. I live in the UK
2. Never when younger thought about it coz I went to a all girl school and didnt know any guys so never got a date let alone anything else.

 

Poor lady Vader. (in reference to comment 2, not comment 1)

 

I know it sucks

oh well .....I am making up for it now with how many guys I know.

But I am still very cautious around men (bad experiences in the past)

 

I haven't read this entire thread so I am sorry if I state things that have already been talked about. But alot of people have been talking about the 18/17 year old relationship etc, so I thought I'd chime in with a few things. In a lot of states, beyond just the age requirements, there are age difference requirements for the statuatory rape laws to apply, ie. if the two individuals are within a certain number of years from each other (2 I think) the older can't be prosecuted, nor can they be prosecuted if there was a sexual relationship before either reached the age of consent so that whole there both 17 then one turns eighteen really doesn't apply. Secondly, beyond this, the statuatory rape laws are very rarely applied in cases of teen - teen sex. Yes there is that rare occasion when a conservative DA will go after someone, but it is almost always in the case when there are other circumstances that might not be provable (a nineteen year old camp councilor and a fourteen year old girl), and it is occasionally used as leverage against a boy after a girl becomes pregnant, but generally, if you are eighteen and your gf is sixteen you really don't have to worry.

Finally, I don't think the age of consent is eighteen anywhere, most places it is seventten, and a few places as low as fourteen(which, even as a liberal I think is a bit too young)

 

FakeHandLuke:

If what you say is true, than I feel much more comfortable with the US laws. I was under the impression though that there were some states where it is a strict over 18 / under 18 with no age differential rule. I also posted many ealier questions that still need answering if anybody happens to know said answers.

 

As to flawed legal systems: Have the legal age or whatnot [im not going to decide this, it could of course vary] and then judge by circumstances the situation. Beforehand, you inform the youth of today that "Violators will be castrated\given hysectonomies"
That should deter them. Or maybe not...

 

For anyone interested, there was an artical in Saturdays New York times about a book which, at least periferrally, explores this question. I forget the title of the article, but one should be able to find it online.

 

Binary, may I point out that when most of those religious ideas on marriage ages were created the life expectancy was about half of what it is now. Shorter life spans = a need to get things started earlier. Women couldn't wait until their mid twenties to get married because they'd most likely be dead in 5 years. They also had kids earlier because of low newborn survival rates and a need to perpetuate the species, because you often had to go through multiple pregnancies just to have one surviving child. Plus with no real schooling for the vast majority of the population, people entered the workforce earlier and in agrarian societies having alot of kids is a benefit to survival.

May I also add that just because girls can marry at 14 according to the Catholic church doesn't mean they should. Hell, you can convert to Islam and marry a 9 year old for all I care, but I'll still think you're a degenerate pevert no matter what the Koran says. Who says churches have got human nature right either?

 

Ok, I'm going to post both my original words and Numquan's replies here so a reader to this page who skipped the earlier exchange will get the full picture

ME

Well first off, statuatory rape is such a terrible name for this particular "offense".
The word rape rightfully carries a certain weight and gravity

HIM

That's the POINT...it carries weight and gravity to discourage people from molesting children but trying to shield it as "well, he/she is a mature 14-year-old and knew what he/she was doing." You don't think a 50-year-old, aggressive man could intimidate and manipulate a teenager?

There is a huge difference between molesting children and having sex with a 14-17 year old teenager. Trying to bring in words with emotional impact like "molest" cheapens this discussion. And it is not shielding to say the teenager in question knew what they were doing, far from it. Bringing in a case with a 50 year-old, agressive man is looking for an extreme to make your argument. You're not looking at the general type of situation here. You're looking for the extremes and hence ignoring the big picture. Hell, that scenario, older person intimidating younger can happen at ANY age, so should sex between people be limited to within say 1-2 years of each other to limit this problem?

ME

I'm not sure what to call it, Sexual Acts w/a Minor, something like that.

HIM

Next we can change "first-degree murder" to "voluntarily making someone pass-away," and "stealing" to "displacing property indefinitely." This is the law we're talking about, not Hollywood Squares.

Logical fallacy. You're trying to equate felonies with a much more minor offense. Statuatory "rape" is not rape at all and if I were a woman who'd been raped I'd find the name offensive. Rape is rape. Sex is sex. Molestation is Molestation. Statuatory rape is in general only one of the three, let me give you a clue, it's not rape or molestation. And you're right, it's not Hollywood Squares, so we should not call it something so misleading. It'd be like calling say, having a car wreck something like "Malicious Destruction of Property with a Motor Vehicle". Sometimes it is, sometimes though, you just hit a patch of ice and slide out of control.

ME

I've met 12 year olds who are more mature than most adults, and I've met adults who are less mature...(snip)...To abitrarily slap an age of consent on these things is silly...

HIM

You're saying your anecdotal evidence carries more weight than the experiences of those who made the laws, just because it fits into a neat little reverse relationship? Talk about arbitrary...

Like I and others have said before in this thread, you have to draw a line somewhere, and the agents of the people (courts, elected officials) have done that for them. The majority of the population agrees, otherwise the law would change.

If any of you have the bolas to stand outside a supermarket asking people to sign a petition to make sex totally legal between adults and minors, more power to you. (NAMBLA can probably offer you some pointers.)

The laws were not made based off experiences, the laws were made based off the same type of rigid religious thinking that sometimes causes trouble for people who enjoy such innocent activities as playing roleplaying games and watching Sci-Fi movies.

Yes, a line has to be drawn, but I think the line in this case is very arbitrary, and based more off of people's prejudices than any true corrolation with reality.

As for the majority of the population agreeing
1) I don't think that's necessarily true, it might be, but it might also be that the population is mostly sheep who are afraid to speak up
2) to quote George Carlin:
"Have you ever noticed how stupid the average person is? Now, realize that if that's average, half the people are dumber than that. It's these kinds of thoughts that keep me awake at night."

 

I agree with Binary. There is too much protection of teenagers these days. Before this century, teenagers didn't even exist. You were a child until you reached puberty, and then you were an adult with serious responsibilities. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a buffer zone to protect the innocent, but it's not really practical.
In most states, young teenagers can now be tried as adults for crimes. So if they're old enough to get the chair, they should be able to choose who to vote for, what to drink, who to sleep with and all the other rights adults have. IMHO.

 

Hey Nunquam,

That young lady knew exactly what she was doing. She was no little girl. She was very aware of the power that a flat stomach, small waist, proportioned breasts, and teenage vagina gave her over males, and she exercised that power with full confidence. She tried numerous times to use her flirtatous demeanor to rascal myself and my other friends into doing things that we thought were dumb (like buying her drinks). Since you argue that she needed protection at such a young and tender age, let me tell you that after passing 18, she has now gone on to sleep with two members of the Florida marlins, multiple travelling businessmen (all married), and several fraternity house presidents at her school. I guess the fruits of her maturity have led her to become a poor, misguided soul who's only escape is to spread her legs for the only high she is capable of getting: the male conquest.

I'll say it again. Gimme a break. Plenty of girls who have sex with older guys are using them. They have something very powerful between their legs, and they know it. Men get into barfights over it; they have killed each other throughout the ages for it. It can be called something, but it doesn't deserve the title 'statutory RAPE'.

V-03

 

Hear hear Vaderize. Bravo. Took guts to stand up to Numquan's very prudish and unrealistic beliefs.

 

*smiles at RiggsWolfe, showing his gleaming white teeth*...thanks man! These boards are so much fun! Later,

V-03

 

RiggsWolfe your post was a rebuttal not a summary.

Because I don't agree with your idea of whether sex between minors and adults should be permitted, I'm a "prude"? Gimme a break. You don't know anything about me or my attitudes about sex, but it makes it easier to dismiss me if you slap a label on me.

I believe teens need the same protection that other minors do. Maybe it's age -- I'm 36 -- and I see there is a BIG difference between teens and adults. Teens don't have the same level of maturity or experience as adults. Sorry, that's a fact. (Look it up in any child development or general psychology text.) I work at a university and deal with college students every day. I used to teach at a junior high school and had seen it everyday.

I've known plenty of women in my 36 years -- friends, acquaintances, girlfriends -- and most of the ones who behave/have behaved like the girl Vaderize03 talks about have profound problems from their childhood or teenage years. They're not the sexual demons you make them out to be.

It's sad that she has so little respect for herself, and that there are so many men who eagerly take advantage of it.

It's a shame that more women haven't posted in this thread, because I think you would find that many who had early sexual experiences look back on them unhappily or with emotional pain. (Re-read LadyVader's message.)

I chose extreme examples to make my point because everyone else was choosing extreme examples. Everyone kept referring to the star-crossed 17/18 year-old lovers, but didn't pause to consider the less romantic and ugly abuses that would occur. It happens daily, if you care to watch the news.

My comment about the petition was to make people think about real-world opinions on adult-minor sex.

People used "rigid religious systems" as an example in condoning teen/pre-teen marriage and condemning it and being the impetus behind the statutory rape law...well, what is it? Can't have it both ways. (I'm an atheist, by the way.)

I think you'll find the statutory rape law comes from a whole host of child protection laws enacted in the early part of the 20th century. There was a lot of abuse of children in the workplace, in particular. (See a history book.)

All I'm saying is that the statutory rape laws serve a good purpose...to prevent adults from preying on minors for sex. Minors are not prepared for it, among other things in the adult world. Certainly there will be exceptions, but the protection the law provides for the majority of minors is worth more than the exceptions. That majority should not be made vulnerable where the law is concerned. If that makes me "prudish" and "unrealistic" in your eyes, then, oh well.

 

I chose extreme examples to make my point because everyone else was choosing extreme examples. Everyone kept referring to the star-crossed 17/18 year-old lovers, but didn't pause to consider the less romantic and ugly abuses that would occur. It happens daily, if you care to watch the news.

The reason we keep referring to this example is because it is absolutely ridiculous that an 18 year old who engages in sexual relations with a 17 year old that s/he might possibly love can be prosecuted for statutory rape. It is just a completely inapproriate word because because rape implies sexual relations against the victim's will. Statutory rape is completely concensual, even if it might be immoral.

Next we can change "first-degree murder" to "voluntarily making someone pass-away," and "stealing" to "displacing property indefinitely."

That's a horrible counterexample. Planning to kill someone in cold blood is first-degree-murder, and violently forcing somebody into sex is rape. Accidentally killing someone in a barfight is manslaughter, and similarly there should be a different name for statutory rape, which is, again, concensual.

 

But as someone pointed out earlier, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The law is, unfortunately, black and white eventhough life is not, because who wants grey laws that everyone with the IQ of a hole puncher can weasel out of? Maybe you don't agree with the age it's set at right now, but there NEEDS to be an age limit, otherwise child molestation would basically be legal. Someone has to decide where the line between child and adult is drawn. And right now it's at 17 or 18 in most states.

 

No it does not have to be black and white.

When somebody dies at the hand of someone else, it's not black and white. There are multiple degrees of murder and manslaughter.

When somebody steals something, its not black and white. There is grand theft, petty theft, etc...

These are shades of gray. I don't see why they cannot be applied to statutory rape as well. For example a 50yr/12yr relationship old being labelled one thing, an 18yr/17yr another. Either way they are not rape. Until they change that word I am completely against the law.

 

I have to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Still I find this sentence interesting "I am completely against the law."

So your entire being, entity, soul is illegal? However did you manage that??

 

"...there should be a different name for statutory rape, which is, again, concensual."

My point was not to equate statutory rape with more serious crimes, but that changing the name to make everyone feel better doesn't change the nature or effect of the crime. The word rape is technically correct and its severity carries a deterrent effect for adults.

(As I understand it, if the law doesn't recognize a minor as capable of consenting to sex with an adult, then it is non-consensual sex...rape. The act is rape because it is made so by statute.)

 

Well maybe you have to be in the situation to understand. I broke up with my underage gf about a month after turning 18, but never, um (blush) committed the act during this time because I was away at school.

However, if we had stayed together, neither of us, nor our respective parents, nor anyone (reasonable) in the community would have dissaproved. And if somebody ever dared to call me a rapist they would have gotten punched (by me) and slapped (by my gf). Actually she'd probably have kicked them in the groin.

The fact that one day something can be legal, the next day illegal, and then a month later legal again is pretty stupid.

And yes my whole being is against the law. I defy the laws of extreme beauty, intelligence, and humbleness.

ADDED: Unfortunately in the real world, rape has much more heinous implications.