patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
756,818 comments in 77,896 posts by 11,081 registered users, 4 online now: errc, mell, Patrick, TwoScoopsMcGee

new post

Why statutory rape is bullshit

By Dan8267   2016 Apr 1, 10:53pm   74 links   13,820 views   42 comments   watch (2)   quote      

Rape is bad. Consensual sex is not. Politicians argue that a 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 26-year-old even though he or she can have consensual sex with a 14-year-old, 15-year-old, and even 17-year-old. This is, of course, complete bullshit that is disproved when the 15-year-old reaches the age of 57 and still says it's not rape. At 57 years, can we finally take the word of the woman that she did in fact consent and enjoy the sex, or is she still mentally incapable of making her own sexual decisions?

This is not a hypothetical situation. Lori Maddox, now 57 years old, had consensual sex with David Bowie -- yes, that David Bowie -- when she was 15 years old and he was 26 years old in 1973. Correction, the sex wasn't merely "consensual" like she gave in and accepted something unpleasant. The sex was craved and coveted. The 15-year-old girl yearned to have sex with the popular 26-year-old man. Consensual is an understatement of such magnitude that it is a lie.

What Should We Say About David Bowie and Lori Maddox?

Should we say “raped” automatically if a grown man has sex with a teenager? Does it matter at all if the 15-year-old, now much older, describes their encounter as one of the best nights of her life? What is our word for a “yes” given on a plane that’s almost vertically unequal? Does contemporary morality dictate that we trust a young woman when she says she consented freely, or believe that she couldn’t have, no matter what she says?

Maddox had implicitly declined the encounter at age 14, and notes no pushback in her account. At age 15, she was less afraid.

We got to the Beverly Hilton and all went up to Bowie’s enormous suite...He was beautiful and clever and poised. I was incredibly turned on. Bowie excused himself and left us in this big living room with white shag carpeting and floor-to-ceiling windows. Stuey brought out Champagne and hash. We were getting stoned when, all of a sudden, the bedroom door opens and there is Bowie in this fucking beautiful red and orange and yellow kimono.

He focused his famously two-colored eyes on me and said, “Lori, darling, can you come with me?” Sable looked like she wanted to murder me. He walked me through his bedroom and into the bathroom, where he dropped his kimono. He got into the tub, already filled with water, and asked me to wash him. Of course I did. Then he escorted me into the bedroom, gently took off my clothes, and de-virginized me.

Two hours later, I went to check on Sable. She was all fucked up in the living room, walking around, fogging up windows and writing, “I want to fuck David.” I told him what she was doing and that I felt so bad. Bowie said, “Well, darling, bring her in.” That night I lost my virginity and had my first threesome.

Maddox, enthusiastic and starry-eyed a full 43 years later, does not recount her encounter as rape; legally, however, it would have been in the state of California, and a strong subset of today’s moral vocabulary dictates that it was, qualitatively, regardless of what Maddox says, an act of coercion—that he was an abuser and a predator no matter what.

So either you believe that David Bowie is a rapist and that the sex he and Maddox had was vile and disgusting rape like what American slave owners did with slaves and what WWII Japanese soldiers did to "comfort women", or you believe the laws calling such sex "statutory rape" are lies. There is no rational justification to equate Maddox's experience losing her virginity at age 15 to a man of age 26 to rape. To say that Maddox's experience, which she does not regrets and even treasures to this day, is the same thing as rape is utterly ridiculous. And since it is utterly ridiculous to make such an equivalency, it is a moral outrage to prosecute the older party in any such case for rape.

The word rape actually means something horrific. To punish innocent people as rapists is terribly wrong, and it also trivializes the suffering of actual rape victims, who, by the way, do not treasure being raped and look fondly back on the experience. And this is why statutory rape is bullshit.


Lori Maddox, Age 15


David Bowie, Age 26

« First     « Previous     Comments 3-42 of 42     Last »

3   marcus   2016 Apr 2, 12:15am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan, let's say you were in a debate competition, and your team was asked to debate this on the opposing side, that is that statutory rape laws are good. Could you make a compelling argument ?

I ask, because I think you could. The question then becomes which argument is better ?

4   YesYNot   2016 Apr 2, 3:52am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Statutory rape needs a brand manager. It's clearly not equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. The Bowie argument is interesting. You've attached the image of a famous and respected person to an act to change people's view of the act. The no regrets lady is a non argument. The law says that a 15 year old can not consent, because he/she can not make an informed decision. That doesn't mean that the decision should always be no or that all 15 yr olds who do have sex will regret it. Hell, if she did regret it, that wouldn't make the whole thing wrong. People make informed decisions that they later regret all the time.

5   lostand confused   2016 Apr 2, 4:30am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Once you hit sexual maturity, your body is screaming for sex. That is just nature. We are quite divorced from it. In animals , females will get all slutty and pursue males. My family has had cows, when in heat they call, they search for bulls and are very "receptive". There is very little rape-as most animals seem to practice Christianity-aka have sex for procreation!!!!

But higher forms like the bonobos and humans have sex for recreation or when the female wants something from the male. Now lions, leopards etc will get into false estrous and mate with new males especially if they have cubs from the prior deposed males. When pride males are deposes, lionesses may have frenzied sex with multiple partners without getting pregnant until they can determine who is the strongest male coalition. leopards will have sex with multiple males so as to confuse paternity and not have their cubs killed by the non father. Animals as diverse as zebras and hippos will kill babies that are not their own.

Now humans are different case, but methinks once puberty hits, satuatry ape charges should go out. I mean a 17 year nine month girl can be a victim of satuatory rape-even though she was horny and sought men out-as nature pushes her to -but when she gets 18-she can sign up for the military and go kill 100 people and that is legal-oh after killing 100 people, she can't have alcohol-LOL!!!

6   Dan8267   2016 Apr 2, 8:43am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

marcus says

Dan, let's say you were in a debate competition, and your team was asked to debate this on the opposing side, that is that statutory rape laws are good. Could you make a compelling argument ?

Not honestly.

I could make a good argument for there being an age of consent based upon the biological ability to reproduce, but I could not make a good argument that males or females that are fully capable of reproducing are mentally incapable of consenting to sex or even reproduction. The vast majority of everyone's ancestors for the past 200,000 years reproduced when they were adolescents. If our ancestors didn't reproduce at that age, our species would have gone extinct.

Culture does not trump biology. We are running the same genetic software and the same body platform that our Stone Age ancestors ran. No cultural preferences are going to change that fact.

Now if people want to argue that we should have state-mandated genetic alternations to all future offspring to delay the onset of puberty until age 30, I'm all ears. But short of manipulating the human genome and forcing these changes on all future children, there is nothing we can do to change biology.

7   Dan8267   2016 Apr 2, 8:50am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

YesYNot says

The no regrets lady is a non argument. The law says that a 15 year old can not consent, because he/she can not make an informed decision. That doesn't mean that the decision should always be no or that all 15 yr olds who do have sex will regret it. Hell, if she did regret it, that wouldn't make the whole thing wrong.

I disagree.

The alleged victim isn't just lacking regret. She states unequivocally that she wanted sex with Bowie, still treasures that experience, and that the experience was not rape. This testimony directly contradicts the unjustified assertion that a 15-year-old cannot consent to sex. It is a living counter-example that disproves the premise of the law.

Furthermore, if a 15-year-old is incapable of consent as the law presumes, then a 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with another 15-year-old. In all such cases, which are the norm today, both 15-year-olds would be guilty of rape. Yet the law does not reflect this because it is ridiculous to such an extent that it offends common sense. Clearly, 15-year-olds can consent to sex with other adolescents. But that fact also means that 15-year-olds can consent to sex with 26-year-olds.

Clearly the laws are hypocritical and written for the sole purpose of falsely demonizing the older of the two lovers.

8   Dan8267   2016 Apr 2, 8:51am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

lostand confused says

Now humans are different case, but methinks once puberty hits, satuatry ape charges should go out. I mean a 17 year nine month girl can be a victim of satuatory rape-even though she was horny and sought men out-as nature pushes her to -but when she gets 18-she can sign up for the military and go kill 100 people and that is legal-oh after killing 100 people, she can't have alcohol-LOL!!!

Yes, there is much hypocrisy in law.

9   YesYNot   2016 Apr 2, 9:08am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (4)   quote    

What about a 20 year old and a five year old?
What about two 5 year olds?
Most people are disgusted by the first example, and would charge the 20 yr old with rape. Does that mean that two five yr olds experimenting are raping each other? What about 10 year olds?

10   P N Dr Lo R   2016 Apr 2, 9:51am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Dan8267 says

1973

That says it all.

Dan8267 says

groups

And so does that.

11   iwog   2016 Apr 2, 9:51am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

YesYNot says

What about a 20 year old and a five year old?

What about two 5 year olds?

Oh please. Is God a pedophile or not? Did you forget the pages of threads on biological sexual maturity? Why are you regressing to an argument that has already been.......dare I say......raped?

12   iwog   2016 Apr 2, 9:56am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

The age of consent in California and many other states was never intended to stop consensual sex. Those laws were passed because minors were being exploited for prostitution. I would argue that prostitution is always harmful while young sexual experiences are simply a part of growing up.

I was "raped" at age 15 and bragged to all my friends about it. Yes she was over 18.

13   YesYNot   2016 Apr 2, 10:18am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Why are you regressing to an argument that has already been.......dare I say......raped?

The OP and after made the argument that if two 15 yr olds have sex, it is consensual. Otherwise, they would be raping each other, which is absurd. If a 15 yr old can consent to sex with another 15 yr old, then a 15 yr old has to be able to consent to a 25 yr old. If we merely push the ages up 5 years, we have:

If two 10 yr olds have sex, it is consensual. Otherwise, they would be raping each other, which is absurd. If a 10 yr old can consent to sex with another 10 yr old, then a 10 yr old has to be able to consent to sex with a 20 yr old.

If the logic is good for case 1, it ought to be good for case 2. Why not push it up another 5 yrs.

The fact is that where we draw the line is never going to be determined by some logical argument. It merely reflects a compromise between the morals of everybody in society.

iwog says

I was "raped" at age 15 and bragged to all my friends about it. Yes she was over 18.

I had a friend who lost his virginity at 10 yrs old. He bragged about it too. I lost my virginity at 15, and know that lots of people are sexually active at that age. I think that the laws are too strict. But I do agree with the age difference part of the rule. I also think that Dan's argument needs work, for the reason that I mentioned above.

14   Dan8267   2016 Apr 2, 10:53am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

1973

That says it all.

Yes, and specifically what it says is that age of consent laws are completely fucking arbitrary and have no basis in protecting people. They are just cultural preferences or prejudices to be honest.

Whether or not a human being is capable of making his or her own sexual decisions at a given age is not a function of whether or not platform shoes are popular.

15   Dan8267   2016 Apr 2, 11:06am     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

YesYNot says

What about a 20 year old and a five year old?

Same as a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old. It's pedophilia when someone in or past puberty has sex with someone pre-pubescent.

YesYNot says

What about two 5 year olds?

Yes, neither are capable of consenting to sex at that age or of understanding what they are doing. In contrast, two 15-year-olds know exactly what they are doing because millions of years of evolution has made it natural for 15-year-old humans to have sex.

Adolescent humans are sexual beings and no law is going to change that. The only way to make adolescent humans non-sexual is to tinker with the human genome so as to delay the onset of puberty and then force every new parent to accept such tinkering in their child's DNA. Good luck in getting popular support for that.YesYNot says

Most people are disgusted by the first example, and would charge the 20 yr old with rape.

I'm disgusted by the idea of two fat people having sex. That does not make it rape. I'm disgusted by two old people having sex, but it's not rape when an elderly married couple bones on their 50th wedding anniversary. How you feel about persons A and B having sex has nothing to do with whether or not its rape unless you are either person A or person B.

YesYNot says

Does that mean that two five yr olds experimenting are raping each other?

If committing rape requires a level of understanding, then two five-year-olds cannot rape a two-year-old. This is not a hypothetical question.

Police investigated five-year-old boy for rape as new figures show 70 sex attacks were committed by children under 10 last year

New figures show how scores of children carried out alleged sex attacks but cannot be prosecuted as they are under the criminal age of responsibility.

A two-year-old child was also accused of grievous bodily harm, the shocking statistics reveal.

But none of this justifies falsely equating consensual sex between sexually mature partners -- and I mean capable of reproducing -- with the hideous crime of rape.

16   YesYNot   2016 Apr 2, 11:58am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Same as a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old. It's pedophilia when someone in or past puberty has sex with someone pre-pubescent.

What about someone with 5 pubic hairs and someone with none? What about 5 pubic hairs and one? What if a pubic hair is there, but then it's removed later? If someone rapes a prepubescent person and says that the are post-pubescent, do we subject the rapee to a search to verify pubescence? Obviously, we need some cutoff that avoids these issues. As has been brought up in other threads, there are other issues beyond whether or not a kid wants to have sex. At the same time, no one wants to criminalize a bunch of kids having sex with other kids of the same age. It's kind of like the issue that Trump got into with abortion this week. Even the pro-life people don't want to put women in jail if they get abortions. Anyway, the current statutory rape laws are arbitrary and prudish. Lots of good people end up on the wrong side of the law for sexual acts that I could not care less about.

Dan8267 says

I'm disgusted by the idea of two fat people having sex.

I'm not morally disgusted by it. wouldn't want to be in the same room, but I'm happy for them. You know I meant morally disgusted.Dan8267 says

If committing rape requires a level of understanding, then two five-year-olds cannot rape a two-year-old.

The law recognizes that children don't have the same culpability as adults. I think it's binary (try someone as an adult or a child) rather than on a sliding scale with age, which would more accurately reflect responsibility, IMO. I think this is for practical reasons, and is similar to the issue of having an age difference.

17   iwog   2016 Apr 2, 1:18pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

YesYNot says

What about someone with 5 pubic hairs and someone with none? What about 5 pubic hairs and one? What if a pubic hair is there, but then it's removed later? If someone rapes a prepubescent person and says that the are post-pubescent, do we subject the rapee to a search to verify pubescence? Obviously, we need some cutoff that avoids these issues.

You want the cutoff date to be between 4 and 8 years AFTER sexual maturity? Almost all girls are through it by age 14 and boys age 16. The result of which is an individual biologically screaming for reproduction while a society condemns it.

18   iwog   2016 Apr 2, 1:22pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

YesYNot says

The law recognizes that children don't have the same culpability as adults.

Because of their inexperience with the world, not their inability to deal with it. You're treating reproduction like a disease that needs to be managed.

19   P N Dr Lo R   2016 Apr 2, 1:52pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

groups

That's when America fractured into "a galaxy of splinter groups, all clamoring with their own special pleadings", in the words of David Horowitz. Once one identifies with a group, they become a forever-victim, unable to ever be pacified or appeased by any concession. Blacks are the most obvious case in point, but it's present in all categories.

20   marcus   2016 Apr 2, 2:48pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The vast majority of everyone's ancestors for the past 200,000 years reproduced when they were adolescents.

Things were very different for most of that time, especially compared to today's so called developed world.

1) Life expectancy and the window of time for being able have children and raise children is more than twice the length of time it was for most of history.

2) In the developed world, "Teens" are no longer put in the situation of needing to make major life decisions at that young an age, and decisions of who to mate with is much more than the decision of who's DNA to utilize for your offspring.

3) Females have much more choice now in who they mate with. For much of history there were a few viable candidates within the tribe, or they were literally taken by men as spoils of war sometimes literally as slaves. Or they could be sold off to a near by tribe in exchange for much needed resources.

4) Dating and sex when young is more about having fun these days, than it is about mating with the first guy that claims you. It's not even expected that the first guy or two that a girl has sex with will be her mate.

These days, because of advances in ability to travel and because of various other technologies and resources, women have millions of men to choose from and it truly is often their choice in much of the developed world. So Society deems it appropriate to spend more time growing up. With this luxury, a 15 year old girl is less mature (in terms of common sense and survival skills) than they would have been centuries or millennial ago, let alone further back.

Statutory rape laws may go against biology, but they are really nothing more than an aid it making it more difficult for 18 or 20 year old guys to take advantage of of girls under 16. IT wasn't meant to prevent girls of that age from getting married and starting families with guys at that age. That convention in the developed world was already in place before statutory rape laws were added to the books. AS an after affect, these laws may have added to a stigma of girls under 16 being seen as taboo or out of bounds, and that may have lead to even less girls getting married that young.

IF I was a father of a highly attractive 15 year old girl (or regardless of attractiveness - but the attractiveness makes here more vulnerable to being taken advantage of only for sexual pleasure), I would not want her having sex. Most fathers in the developed world today feel this way instinctively. There are reasons for this, and the law is there to help them with this. But not to prevent it from happening if the will of both parties is strong enough.

21   iwog   2016 Apr 2, 5:41pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

marcus says

IF I was a father of a highly attractive 15 year old girl (or regardless of attractiveness - but the attractiveness makes here more vulnerable to being taken advantage of only for sexual pleasure), I would not want her having sex. Most fathers in the developed world today feel this way instinctively. There are reasons for this, and the law is there to help them with this. But not to prevent it from happening if the will of both parties is strong enough.

The solution endorsed by thousands of years of civilization was marriage and a guarantee that if someone married her young, he'd be legally compelled to provide for her and he would be punished if he abandoned her. HIS remedy was also marriage since a wife who cheated or turned to drugs or abused her children was cast off and lost both the husband and the children.

All the female benefits of marriage were enhanced and expanded into non-marital relationships. Meanwhile the male benefits of marriage were cut to pieces and burned at the altar of feminism. This is truly a culture that hates men. Returning to the example of protecting your daughter, she would enjoy state protections that parents 100 years ago could only dream about. If she married young or even got pregnant out of marriage, the state will hunt him to the far corners of the nation to ensure he became an indentured servant. Even if he eluded police and skipped the country, she'd be provided for by the state and ALL men would have to care for her through taxation.

22   Ceffer   2016 Apr 2, 6:01pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Statutory rape? I could never figure out why somebody would want to rape a statue, anyway.

23   Dan8267   2016 Apr 3, 12:25pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

YesYNot says

What about someone with 5 pubic hairs and someone with none? What about 5 pubic hairs and one?

There is obvious a transition from child to adult, but it begins at puberty, not at the end of puberty.

Should a adolescent have the right to get an abortion? If an adolescent is old enough to make informed consent to get an abortion, then that adolescent is old enough to make conformed consent to have sex in the first place. Wherever you draw the line on when adolescents are old enough to make the decision on whether or not to have an abortion is the same place the line should be drawn for consenting to have sex.

YesYNot says

someone rapes a prepubescent person and says that the are post-pubescent, do we subject the rapee to a search to verify pubescence?

Rape is rape. You prosecuted it regardless of age. Statutory rape is not rape or anything like rape.

YesYNot says

I'm not morally disgusted by it. wouldn't want to be in the same room, but I'm happy for them. You know I meant morally disgusted.

I am morally disgusted by prosecuting people for things that should not be crimes including consensual sex, use of drugs, free speech, homosexuality, etc. It is immoral to demand that non-violent people committing no harm should be locked up and strip-searched at gunpoint for doing something that is natural, consensual, and in no way harmful. To use violence and the threat of violence to throw people into cages for the mere pursuit of happiness is extremely immoral.

In fact, our entire prison system is morally bankrupt.

24   Dan8267   2016 Apr 3, 1:08pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

marcus says

Dan8267 says

The vast majority of everyone's ancestors for the past 200,000 years reproduced when they were adolescents.

Things were very different for most of that time, especially compared to today's so called developed world.

Biology is the same, so calling men who want to have sex with fertile 15-year-olds unnatural perverts is utterly ridiculous.

However, there are social changes, and all of those social changes make it even more acceptable for such relationships.

1. Birth Control - no more unwanted pregnancies
2. Abortions - the same
3. Safe pregnancies - no more death during childbirth
4. Economic independence - women don't have to marry as virgins to men in order to be supported in adulthood.
5. Greater education - most women in human history had their first child between 12 and 15 and were illiterate at the time. Today everyone is literate and has all of mankind's knowledge at their fingertips.
6. Social safety nets - there are various anti-poverty programs, health care programs, and sex and child education programs available for women of child-bearing years.

Now let's go over your reasons for criminalizing consensual relationships.

marcus says

1) Life expectancy and the window of time for being able have children and raise children is more than twice the length of time it was for most of history.

This has nothing to do with consensual relationships between adolescents and adults. Maybe you could argue that old men should not be allowed to have sexual relationships with middle-age women because the old men are more likely to die before the child becomes an adult than a middle-age man would be. But if you are making that argument than no person with a persistent medical condition that shortens life spans should be allowed to become a parent or have sex. History of heart disease or cancer? Can't have sex.

And the entire premise that whether or not two people should be allowed to mate is contingent upon what might happen to children they produce is wrong anyway because consent to sex is not consent to parent. With birth control and abortion, people have way more sex for pleasure than for reproducing. Any law based on the assumption that sex equals reproduction is fundamentally wrong.

Furthermore, such an argument does not remotely address anti-consensual-sex laws. It is illegal for a 25-year-old man to have consensual sex with a 15-year-old boy or for a 25-year-old woman to have sex with a 15-year-old girl. Yet in both cases, clearly there is no chance of pregnancy. It is also illegal for a 25-year-old woman to have sex with a 15-year-old boy -- and many school teachers have been imprisoned for this -- even though it is only the older one who might get pregnant.

In fact, anti-consensual-sex laws have greatly harmed children. There have been cases like a man being arrested for marrying his girlfriend and mother of his child because he married her in a state with a lower marriage age. The man was stepping up to take care of his wife and child. He had his wife's parents permission. Having a stable family was in the interest of the child. And he was still convicted of pedophilia charges for legally getting married. So clearly these laws aren't designed to protect children.

marcus says

2) In the developed world, "Teens" are no longer put in the situation of needing to make major life decisions at that young an age, and decisions of who to mate with is much more than the decision of who's DNA to utilize for your offspring.

Again, consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent.

Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense to say that a 15-year-old can consent to sex with another 15-year-old, but not a 25-year-old.

marcus says

3) Females have much more choice now in who they mate with. For much of history there were a few viable candidates within the tribe, or they were literally taken by men as spoils of war sometimes literally as slaves. Or they could be sold off to a near by tribe in exchange for much needed resources.

Since females have more choice now, their right to choice is more important now.

As little as the mid-20th century, it was routine for 15-year-old girls to marry and start families. This wasn't a sex trade or sex slavery. These were normal marriages.

It is disingenuous to compare consensual relationships, whether today or in the 19th century, to sex slavery.

marcus says

4) Dating and sex when young is more about having fun these days, than it is about mating with the first guy that claims you. It's not even expected that the first guy or two that a girl has sex with will be her mate.

Again, this is a reason why consensual relationships between adolescents and adults should be more acceptable today.

marcus says

Statutory rape laws may go against biology, but they are really nothing more than an aid it making it more difficult for 18 or 20 year old guys to take advantage of of girls under 16.

And that statement shows the anti-male bigotry inherent in all anti-consensual-sex laws. It is assumed that if a male orgasms, he must be taking advantage of a female. This is utter Puritanical, sexist bullshit.

Teenage girls are sexual beings. They like to have orgasms. They do have orgasms. They like to give orgasms. They like to be sexually attractive to older and more powerful men. Teenage girls love their sexual power. They are not being taken advantage of when they have sex with teenage boys or men.

To say that teenage girls are being taken advantage of whenever they enjoy sex is utterly sexist and demeaning to women. It is also completely ridiculous and an affront to the very concept of equality under law for men and women.

marcus says

IF I was a father of a highly attractive 15 year old girl (or regardless of attractiveness - but the attractiveness makes here more vulnerable to being taken advantage of only for sexual pleasure), I would not want her having sex.

...especially not with a 15-year-old guy.

A 40-year-old guy in a sexual relationship with your hypothetical 15-year-old daughter would have sex once a week with her for about ten minutes. He would absolutely use a condom because he would not want to get her pregnant. He would keep quite about the relationship so as not to incur the wrath of others. He would buy her nice things and take her to nice restaurants, and he would be highly respectful of her.

The typical immature 15-year-old guy would fuck the shit out of her in every position at least five times a day. He'd video it because that's cool. He'd share pictures and videos of it with his friends. Some of those pictures and videos would make it onto the Internet where they would live forever. The 15-year-old guy absolutely will cum on your daughter's face because he saw that shit on a porno. He would brag about how much he bangs your daughter, affecting her status in her social circles. And he would treat her like shit, cheat on her, and dump her when something better comes along because he's a 15-year-old male, the most selfish, immature, and sexually rampant creature on the planet.

If you wanted to protect your 15-year-old daughter from being used like a jizz rag, you'd encourage her to date older men. The older the better. There is nothing more perverted and sexually exploitive than a teenage male. And yet, anti-consensual-sex laws makes it far more likely that your 15-year-old daughter is going to be used as a sex object by limiting her choices to the worst possible selection of males, those under 18, who are the horniest and least likely to be looking for a long-term relationship.

Using anti-consensual-sex laws to protect girls from being used as sex objects is like removing a person from her back yard and placing her in the middle of an Indy 500 racetrack in order to protect her from cars. It's ludicrous and counter-productive.

Additionally, you do not own your daughter's sexuality. Should you be allowed to prevent your daughter from getting an abortion? Should you be allowed to prevent your daughter from having consensual sex with her 15-year-old boyfriend? Should you be allowed to make your daughter wear a chastity belt? Unless the answer to each of these questions is a resounding yes, then you should not also be allowed to interfere with your daughter's sexual decisions when they involve someone over 18, and for the exact same reasons.

Human beings own their own lives. Human beings are sexual beings who own their own sexual decisions, but not anyone else's. It is wrong for one person, even a parent, to force his or her sexual decisions on to another person. You may not like that your daughter has had multiple sexual partners and engaged in everything from blow jobs to intercourse, but it's her life, not yours. It's her body, not yours. It's her decision, not yours. The only power you have over her is the power of persuasion. The power of coercion is simply not acceptable, especially when it is coercion through violence and the threat of violence, which is how all laws are enforced.

25   Dan8267   2016 Apr 3, 1:11pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ceffer says

Statutory rape? I could never figure out why somebody would want to rape a statue, anyway.

It's not rape. It was a consensual act of sex between an Asian man and a statue of a vagina. And give the guy a break. It was the first time an Asian man could say, "I was too big".

26   GX   2016 Jun 30, 11:05am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"marcus says

[Statutory rape law] wasn't meant to prevent girls of that age from getting married and starting families with guys at that age.

That is a false statement.

In CA, half of the spoils (up to $25,000) of the case go to the treasury to pay for the DA and prosecution, the other half goes to the Pregnancy Prevention Fund.

Statutory rape law is justified on the basis of protecting teenage pregnancy. The problem with this reason is that applies only applies to females who are underage, as males cannot become pregnant.

Moreover the law does not take into account any consideration or deliberation by either party to avoid or plan for pregnancy.

Another rationale is that minors are usually economically, socially, and legally unequal to adults. Statutory rape laws aim to give the minor some protection against adults who have greater financial and social status.

This rationale, in contrast with the reason of protecting against teenage pregnancy ignores the fat that that youth possess the power of looks and virility. this rationale for the law notices that older people tend to bring more experience with sex and relationships, but says that this is bad.

Statutory rape laws are justified by a variety of factors, some of which conflict with each other.

Another reason for statutory rape laws is to relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove lack of consent. This increases the rate of conviction.

"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent,
..."

David is the child of a man of good moral character. David is the child of a father and mother who raised him. David's father, at the age of 17, impregnated his then 13 year old mother. According to CA law, this is a crime. The man's father should be "punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 7, 9, or 11 years"

Criminal sentencing is determined, in part, by the age of the above-age person. Sex between a 17 year old and a 70 year old would be a crime with heavier punishment, due to the age difference. However, sex between an 18 year old and a senior citizen would not be a crime. Both cases might seem disgusting, but it happens and it can be good.

Adolescents are impacted by age of consent laws, that unduly reinforce socially repressive stigmas. One of those ways is by violently enforcing the unnatural and immoral argument that they are children and that for them to have sex is wrong and immoral. Yet at the same time, sexuality in media uses symbolism and associates sexuality (and increasingly homosexuality) with power and money, often for social construction and branding. The result is that children are deprived of experiential learning (the right way) and learn bad moral values, and eschew responsibility.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269

27   iwog   2016 Jun 30, 11:35am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

GX says

"marcus says

[Statutory rape law] wasn't meant to prevent girls of that age from getting married and starting families with guys at that age.

That is a false statement.

No, it's a true statement and if you decided to stop making things up and researched the origin of statutory rape laws you'd know that. They were ONLY enacted to prevent prostitution and also to prevent unwanted children from being a burden on society. Marriage was always an exception. However in most states the marriage exception was removed.

I just noticed you copied and pasted from the Wiki article but were too dishonest to post more than a single paragraph. Intellectual corruption is an absolute necessity for people defending statutory rape laws. Here's the rest of it: Historically, a man could defend himself against statutory rape charges by proving that his victim was already sexually experienced prior to their encounter (and thus not subject to being corrupted by the defendant).[12] A requirement that the victim be "of previously chaste character" remained in effect in some U.S. states until as late as the 1990s.

GX says

Statutory rape law is justified on the basis of protecting teenage pregnancy. The problem with this reason is that applies only applies to females who are underage, as males cannot become pregnant.

So logically in order to rule on the side of freedom, we can totally eliminate statutory rape in the case where the male as a vasectomy. Right? I didn't think so.

GX says

Statutory rape laws are justified by a variety of factors, some of which conflict with each other.

Statutory rape laws are never justified in any instance as long as the girl is sexually mature and not being coerced.

GX says

Another reason for statutory rape laws is to relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove lack of consent. This increases the rate of conviction.

Guilty until proven innocent eh? It's scary how many people now support this and want to openly defy the constitution. Dark Ages here we come!!!

GX says

Adolescents are impacted by age of consent laws, that unduly reinforce socially repressive stigmas. One of those ways is by violently enforcing the unnatural and immoral argument that they are children and that for them to have sex is wrong and immoral. Yet at the same time, sexuality in media uses symbolism and associates sexuality (and increasingly homosexuality) with power and money, often for social construction and branding. The result is that children are deprived of experiential learning (the right way) and learn bad moral values, and eschew responsibility.

This is so convoluted that after reading it three times, I couldn't come up with a coherent point.

I will just say that God is apparently a pedophile, the human sex drive IS NOT the result of social conditioning, and men are hated in Western society and therefore must now take steps to exterminate that bias.

28   curious2   2016 Jun 30, 11:42am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

YesYNot says

The no regrets lady is a non argument.

Actually, I think that should be an essential element of the alleged crime.

For example, in some states, the elements and defenses include what the defendant knew or should have known. (Oh no, another "thought crime"!) If a 17yo high school senior buys a fake ID and uses that to get into a 21+ singles bar, and claims to be a 22yo university senior, then she creates a reasonable belief that she is over 18. In some states, such reasonable belief is a defense to statutory rape. In other states, it is no defense, and the crime is the same regardless of whether the defendant met the alleged victim in a singles bar or in a schoolyard. Probably most people think reasonable belief should be a defense, although some binary programmers might then call it a "thought crime" and say intent is unprovable. In reality, intent is an element of many crimes, and reasonable belief is often a defense.

Likewise, another element should be to ask whether the underage "victim" is in fact a victim. Did she have cause to regret it later? If she caught an STD or got pregnant, then yes, she was harmed by a risk that she was too young to consent to.

In my opinion, the phrase "victimless crime" is an oxymoron. If there was no victim, then there was no crime. "No harm, no foul." Unfortunately, we tend to get legislation designed to increase the revenues of patronage networks that wrote and enacted it. The prison industrial complex wages an endless "war on drugs," which has obviously failed in all its purported goals, but has conferred vast revenue and power on the drug warriors who insist on continuing it. We live in a culture where 51% of the voters can be persuaded to lock up the other 49%, for any reason or for none. The only solution I can see is to amend the Constitution to prohibit the possibility of "victimless crimes." Of course, people could always argue the "butterfly effect" to allege some indirect victim somewhere, which is why I have suggested that nothing should be a felony unless at least three fourths of voters agree, and nothing should be a misdemeanor unless at least two thirds of voters agree. Otherwise, we end up in a minefield of mousetraps.

29   iwog   2016 Jun 30, 11:47am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Pregnancy is safer than ever, all children care easily cared for or adopted to a capable family, and girls are maturing earlier than ever before both physically and intellectually.

Yet sex with sexually mature women is more persecuted now than any time prior in history. (a female teacher that rapes a 13-year old boy is given probation)

What is wrong with this picture?

30   GX   2016 Jun 30, 1:37pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

"marcus says

[Statutory rape law] wasn't meant to prevent girls of that age from getting married and starting families with guys at that age.

That is a false statement.

No, it's a true statement and if you decided to stop making things up and researched the origin of statutory rape laws you'd know that. They were ONLY enacted to prevent prostitution and also to prevent unwanted children from being a burden on society. Marriage was always an exception. However in most states the marriage exception was removed.

iwog says

That is a false statement.

The evidence supporting that argument was on the next line and it was referenced from the two links : "In CA, half of the spoils (up to $25,000) of the case go to the treasury to pay for the DA and prosecution, the other half goes to the Pregnancy Prevention Fund."

See "WHY SO MUCH ATTENTION TO STATUTORY RAPE?"

Where the reasons given are entirely related to teen pregnancy;

"California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

Every 8 minutes, a teenager in California has a baby.
3 of 4 births to High School girls are fathered by adults.
Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.
The Average Age difference between the teen victim and the adult defendant in cases filed by the District
Attorney is 7years 9months.
Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls.
In California almost 70% of teen births are fathered by adult men.
On an average California day 76 teenage girls, 17 & younger, will give birth.
In Stanislaus County over 6% of teenage girls will give birth in any given year.
In 1993 1,572 births in California were to mothers 14 years or younger.
The rate of sexually transmitted disease among teenage girls is twice that of teenage boys.
This all translates into a tremendous drain in our welfare and medical resources statewide.
AFDC and Medi-Cal costs for 1 teen pregnancy, birth and 1st year support is $10,000.
Total costs for teen births to those 17 and younger in 1993 for California were $140 million. "
http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

And yes, they use that money to prevent pregnancy.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269

Clearly there is an agenda to reduce underage pregnancy. It is implemented by the use of force of the state, the criminal justice system, and the threat of being labeled a sex offender.

The rationale and justification given for statutory rape laws were not copied verbatim from the Wikipedia page, but I did look at it and was influenced by it. Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

You not liking those reasons does not mean that they don't exist. They do, in fact exist, and are used as rationale for the law. The three documents I've linked show that to be the case. Again, there are several rationalizations for statutory rape laws, some of which conflict with each other. You not liking those rationalizations does not make them automatically go away. The best you could do would be to take a deep breath and relax and learn to listen to what others have to say. People are a lot more receptive to listen to you if you listen to them first.

Moreover, people often extrapolate morality from law and authoritative bodies rather than from their own understanding, experience, and critical insight. Or to put it another way, for many, government defines what is right and wrong. If you want to influence anyone, try new different approach.

31   rpanic01   2016 Jun 30, 3:12pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

What if parents take their daughter to a doctor for a prescription for birth control, the parents think their daughter is ready. When I was in high school and Jr high a lot of girls were on the pill. Seemed like it wasn't that big of a deal if a 18yo senior was banging a freshman either.

The way the laws are now its bullshit and should be more on a case by case basis if it is consensual.

32   iwog   2016 Jun 30, 7:33pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

GX says

You not liking those reasons does not mean that they don't exist.

They don't exist. You're either incapable of critical thinking or you have an agenda so deep that you're willing to lie.

This was made crystal clear by you devoting your entire post to my point about why the age of consent was originally instituted 100 years ago and even then, your rebuttal is a law passed in the 1990s.

It's utterly pathetic.

33   iwog   2016 Jun 30, 7:34pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

PussyIwog says

Apparently, it takes one to know one.

LOL.....piggy agreed God is a pedophile!!! ROFLOL

Just to be clear for those who aren't as stupid as piggy, saying God is a pedophile isn't a commentary on God. It's a commentary on hateful bigoted human beings.

34   Dan8267   2016 Jul 9, 11:48pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Neither this woman, nor a man who does the exact same thing, should get any prison time for consensual sex. Fired from teaching? Sure. Not prison.

22 years is ridiculous, but the outrage is purely due to the defendant being a woman. A man would be condemned and people would be cheering for the sentence.

35   iwog   2016 Jul 10, 1:16am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Excellent example of how feminism and the witch hunt to demonize men will hurt women.

36   TwoScoopsMcGee   2016 Jul 10, 7:06am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

However, there are social changes, and all of those social changes make it even more acceptable for such relationships.

Other reasons: Humans enter puberty earlier, and in previous eras, kids had a much narrower social circle and therefore less socialization by a similar age.

37   austria   2016 Jul 11, 6:44pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

I'm going through something horrible right now. I'm 16 ( less than 5 months away from being 17 - which is the AoC in my state) and my boyfriend is 21 (4 months from being 22) yet he is in jail for allegedly "raping" me (Statutory rape in the 2nd degree which is a Class C felony). He's at least 5 years older than me, but I am less than 5 months away from the AOC. He's also a citizen from Spain, so not only will they be giving him a criminal record if found guilty, he may also be banned from ever coming back from the U.S.
I just want to know what people think about this. Is this fair? Despite how close I am to the AOC (I'm aware that the law is the law, I'm just asking for other people's thoughts)?

How come I'm old enough to have sex with someone at my school, but not old enough to have sex with my boyfriend (not saying we did have sex) who is also a virgin like me - but just a few years older than me & technically not "fully developed" either? Why am I incapable of making that decision? I'm curious.
I want to hear others thoughts, but I kindly ask for no insults, or rude comments.

38   iwog   2016 Jul 11, 6:52pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

I don't know if this has ever been tried but if the case goes to trial, you might be able to work through the defense attorney to deliver a scathing attack on the prosecution and see if you can turn the jury against this ridiculous law.

Otherwise I don't know what to tell you. He'll be fine in Spain because they don't hunt witches like they do in this country. Maybe you both should go there and get married.

39   austria   2016 Jul 11, 7:12pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

He was arrested June 27th, so there hasn't been a trial yet, but I'm speaking with his lawyer. It's such a shame. We were planning on doing that after my graduation, but we don't even know anymore. If he is going to prison or being deported or if the charges will be dropped - we don't know :(

40   someone else   2016 Jul 11, 7:16pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

It might help at least somewhat if you are very clear that it was consensual.

41   Dan8267   2016 Jul 12, 2:31pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

austria says

How come I'm old enough to have sex with someone at my school, but not old enough to have sex with my boyfriend

A perfectly valid point. How is it better that you have an intimate relationship with another 16-year-old rather than a 21-year-old? If anything, the 21-year-old will be more mature and less likely to abuse that relationship, for example, by revealing intimate details to others.

The law is clearly screwed up and not designed to protect you or others but simply designed to exert control over people's personal sex lives.

iwog says

I don't know if this has ever been tried but if the case goes to trial, you might be able to work through the defense attorney to deliver a scathing attack on the prosecution and see if you can turn the jury against this ridiculous law.

If you testify, inform the jury about jury nullification.

It is the right of juries to vote however they want regardless of what the court says.

42   Dan8267   2016 Jul 12, 2:34pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

« First     « Previous     Comments 3-42 of 42     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home