As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Statutory 'rape' LAWS - Stupid or needed?
Magus`
The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered User regular
The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered User regular
I've always felt that the whole idea behind statutory 'rape' was a bunch of BS. Obviously there is a big difference between it and actual rape as well as a difference between an 18 and 17 year old and a 22 and 13 year old having sex.
The point of this discussion (which was partially brought on by the McCain thread) is should we think about changing (or flat out removing) statutory rape in most cases?
Though I've not personally been in this situation, I've had friends go to jail and be labeled sex offenders for having sex with their (VERY) willing GFs who were (at most) 2 years younger.
Is this just another case of moral (and/or religious) ideals standing in the way of logical judgement?
The point of this discussion (which was partially brought on by the McCain thread) is should we think about changing (or flat out removing) statutory rape in most cases?
Though I've not personally been in this situation, I've had friends go to jail and be labeled sex offenders for having sex with their (VERY) willing GFs who were (at most) 2 years younger.
Is this just another case of moral (and/or religious) ideals standing in the way of logical judgement?
Magus` on
0
Posts
A 25-year-old should probably spend some time in jail for fucking a 16-year-old. A 17-year-old should not.
I suppose, though even then I'm not terribly sure.
A 17 year old is capable of quite a bit. Though I think 17 would basically be the cut off point.
I also recently read a story of a 13 and 12 year old having sex. While I think this shouldn't happen and they should have some form of counseling, I was dismayed to find out that both of them were 'having the book thrown at them'. This isn't something you PUNISH, this is something you dissuade and explain through talking and teaching.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Yeah, I always thought that it was tailored so 18 year olds hooking up with 17 year old was fine.
On a lighter note - lets let everyone vote no matter how old they are. :P
Could we at least rename it? Something like "Idecent activity as related to age" or something more techinical?
Rape is a MUCH different (and actually terrible) beast than this.
Also, in the case of the 17/18 year old (or whatever the consent law is) I don't think it should be a punishable offense.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Then again, in the UK you can be married at 16 and have sex. You can make a porn tape. You can have kids and have a family. But you cannot look at or buy porn...Nor drink nor drive.
Why are you responsible enough to look after another human being and not drink yet smoke?
Half your age, plus 7 (8?) years or AOC. Whichever comes first. Done and done.
Edit: beat'd
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, this depends totally on what state you're in. Technically, it's punishable in California, but only with a fine; I'm not even sure whether it's a misdemeanor or a violation.
I don't think it is most places.
These are laws that very by state right?
Do I just royally misunderstand the statutory rape law or are we discussing whether I, a 24 year old, should be allowed to have sex with the 17 year old girl?
I call bullshit on the 'can't consent' thing. They might not understand the complexities of the situation but that's more something that their parents, teachers, or whatnot should explain to them, not the government.
Like, if someone got hit with this and it just a small fine and no jail time, I wouldn't mind. But people go to jail for YEARS with this and are labeled sex offenders. Though it's not always the case, the first thing you think when you hear 'sex offender' is child molestor most of the time and this is just NOT the case 4 out of 5 times with all the statutory rape cases I've seen.
Edit - When I'm talking about the consent part, I mean 16-17 year olds, not 15 and under.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
What part of legally incapable of granting consent don't you understand? They cannot grant consent regardless of how much they may want to. They legally can't, unless they're above the AOC. At which point statutory rape becomes a moot point because it'd either be just sex or actual rape.
I like its elegance, but wonder whether depending on the math skills of the American public is wise.
Understood, but we can always set the age of consent at an age under 18. Personally, I don't favor this. I think 18 is a good age, because it represents adulthood, and setting it there prevents older college frat boys from trolling high school dances, offering chicks alcohol in order to get a little "consent" off of them.
Obviously, there needs to be a relative age of consent, though, for people under 18.
At the very least I'd like to see less prison sentences and more restraining orders (a necessary evil, if you will).
Keep in mind that I understand these laws do help with keeping predators away, but I think it blankets too many things.
I was lucky enough that my GF was recently turned 18 before we did stuff, but looking back I can't fathom being branded for life for a little consensual fun in the sack.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
To the nearest sensible fraction (ie _/12th). That sort of thing can be clarified with relative ease all the while ensuring that it doesn't have the horrible penalties doled out due to a wholly arbitrary difference.
Now, this isn't to say that in some areas they don't need a little fine-tuning...the standards can vary wildly from state to state. No, I don't necessarily think an 18-year-old should get busted for sleeping with somebody within a year or two of his own age.
But anybody who thinks that, say, a 13-year-old girl is really meaningfully consenting with a 35-year-old man is, IMO, dead wrong. This is the situation statutory rape laws are meant to prevent...the details on the low end of the spectrum can always be adjusted.
As for those more "borderline cases", say a 25-year-old guy who's truly madly and deeply in love with a 16-year-old girl...you can wait two years. The law doesn't say you can't date (though her parents may well decide to), it just says you can't fuck. And if the relationship can't last the two years until she hits 18 (or gets from 14 to 16, should that be the law where you live), then oh fucking well. Obviously it wasn't true love, so go find somebody your own age to score with.
Therein lies the (aha) rub. What is the point where people magically transition to being able to intelligently make their own decisions? For a large portion of the population, that doesn't happen until the early 20s at least. 18 is a magical number and probably no more right or wrong than a year or two younger. What it does though, is draws a line in the sand and says "We can't really fully quantify this, but here's the mark where you're bound to get shit thrown at you."
That site is out of date it doesn't take the Lawrence v. Texas decision into account.
Looking out the window, it dosen't seem like we've fallen into a state of complete and total anarchy.
I think 16 is a pretty good cutoff point. By that time, like it or not, most people have a strongly developed sense of self and a personal moral code. Coddling kids past that ages is pretty pointless. they can still use parental guidance at that age but I don't think it's fair to consdier them "kids" anymore If they want to do something they'll probably do it anyway.
The specific ages, I think, are less important than the order they come in.
In particular, I think the drinking age should be moved lower. Much, much lower. Basically, if we move the drinking age to 13 or 14 there will be less of an impetus for 16-17 year olds to get in contact with twentysomethings just for the sake of getting alcohol. The promise of a college party where they're going to have a keg (omg) is going to be less appealing to teenagers because the novelty of alcohol will have already worn off.
Edit: I have other reasons for believing this as well but they're not relevant to the thread.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's my other reason.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hi2u europe! Except (in France at least) the driving age is 18, not 21.
And also, I believe that in every jurisdiction, there is a one year limit on jail time for statutory rape cases, since they are strict liability.
The best part of that story is that, due to the wacky laws in that state, both of them were charged with sexual assault, so they were both the perpetrator and the victim.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Either way, I think the laws are a necessary evil. A girl I dated for a long time (and will probably end up marrying) has worked in mental health since she's gotten out of college, primarily dealing with troubled youth. You wouldn't believe how many teenage girls "date" guys in their 30s. The law just needs more fine tuning.
Heh, yeah, a girl I was screwing for a short bit before we settled on just being friends had previously dated a dude who was like, 30, while she was 17. That kind of shit weirds me out.
That said, I think there's obvious fine-tuning needed on these laws, and I think it's pretty clear that labeling a guy who slept with his slightly underage girlfriend with the same generic "sex offender" label (which may as well read "inhuman monster" for all the stigma it gets) that rapists and child pornographers get.
Of course, these laws never catch those guys. It's always the guy who just turned 18 yesterday and had birthday sex with his 16 year old girlfriend who he's been with for three years.
...Nice...