Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[gumboot]

That is not an affirmative defense to statutory rape. Belief in the mind of the accused is irrelevant to his or her guilt or innocence. Under certain circumstances, it might be something that could be taken into account at sentencing. However, the punishment for a crime is a completely separate issue from culpability.

Actually in quite a few jurisdictions if the defendant took all reasonable steps, prior to having sex, to confirm the person's age as over the age of consent, and at the time of sex they believed the person to be of age, and if the younger person consented, that's a legitimate defence.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, if your suggested changes were to be made in the treatment of age of consent cases, wouldn't that increase the probability of people attempting to use their own judgement when deciding to have sex with a minor or not, rather than avoiding it altogether?

Yes.

And if so, is that really an exclusively good thing?

No.

After all, it's not unlikely that some of those who wish to have sex with minors have a flawed perception of the maturity of those minors. They may have sex with minors who are not mature enough to give consent, in the belief that their judgement is valid, and that the judicial system will support their decision. In their own eyes, they are not breaking the law, so it does not serve its purpose as a deterrent.

Correct.

It's a legitimate argument and not one I hadn't considered. That's why I've been asking for evidence of deterrence regarding the existing laws.

Could this not lead to an increase in statutory rape cases?

It could, which could be a result not only of increased relationships but of minors being more likely to report. Laws are funny like that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I quite disagree. Reason is about objectivity:

The word is reasonable, not reason. Second, you don't seem to understand that "reasonable" is a subjective standard applied objectively. Honestly, I don't feel like giving you a lecture on the reasonable person doctrine nor do I feel like reviewing for you various self defense cases. It's pretty clear to me that you've never actually read up on the issue, which is evidenced by your source, which describes itself as:

ProtectingYourself was founded by John Rowlinson, the founder of PtS.

John, through PtS, is involved in a number of ventures including software and property companies. A percentage of revenue from these activities goes towards funding ProtectingYourself and a number of similar sites.

Our focus is simply on having experts create the highest quality information possible that is widely read.

I encourage you to research reasonable person doctrine and read a few court opinions about self-defense and negligence cases, especially those that have made their way through several appeals. While you are doing so, ask yourself why we need a jury to judge these matters and why decisions get appealed and overturned. When you do, you will understand why what I am proposing is not unusual.

ETA: To better illustrate what I'm driving at, in (say) a self-defense case, both the prosecution and defense can agree on the facts 100%. It is up to the jury to decide what those facts mean. This is sharp contrast to situations where the facts themselves are disputed and if true are clearly a crime. Or look at Fair Use when it comes to copyright infringement, which is a crime. The Copyright Office states in their circular, "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined." There's most certainly a defined standard to be applied (just like with self-defense), but the reality is that as a creator/user you may not know if your work is an infringement.

Okay, so ordinary rape won't be subjected to your test. That is... rather unhelpful.

Huh? "Ordinary rape" is a matter of consent. Some consent is easy to judge such as was the person awake. Other issues of consent are much more difficult to judge. In all cases the ability to consent is presumed to exist unless proven otherwise (such as being asleep).

And you don't win the million for mind-reading. I am coming at this from a youth perspective, and the biggest problem I had with the laws, and the biggest problem my peers had, was that trying to reach a conclusion on the best action to take based on the law was quite difficult under the current laws. That was my original problem, and under your laws, it would be complete disarray. I prefer rules that set things in order, so that people know when they would or would not be committing a crime.

Whether you are aware of it or not, every time you have sex with a woman you are making a tacit judgment about her ability to consent. With adults it is usually obvious, but what if she's been drinking? At what point does it shift from loosened up to not thinking clearly? Legally we can define a term (like reasonable), describe it, and have case law surrounding it, but ultimately it's a subjective judgment by the jurors/judge. That's just how it works.

 

[applecorped]

see ya in 30 days.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So is being on the lower 50% of the IQ scale.
Or being a human at all.
Or being any creature.

Right, so anything should be able to sleep with anything!

We were making wild hyperbolic statements, right?

 

[Dorian Gray]

While i have confessed to having a rape fetish in another thread it's actually in the receptive role of being raped by other men, so i don't really think it counts. I just like to read about morbid, rotten and weird things that have happened around the world and what's more rotten than rape? I mean i could create a thread about this crazy dendrophile who murdered and raped people but i didn't feel like it.

Anyway, this thread gave me something to think about (and managed to distract me from more important things). Still, i feel that the only defensible age of consent is between 13-15 years old. And this isn't because of entirely selfish reasons (teenagers become sexually attractive to me probably when they are around in their late 14's and early 15's, the majority of those younger than that still look like little children to me) but because i feel that these ages are a good compromise between individual sexual freedom and both the risk of harm to the minor and society as a whole. Perhaps 14 is a better compromise or maybe 15 is. I really don't know.

Society cannot be perfect and it cannot please everyone in it but if we can demonstrably reduce the amount of suffering in society by either increasing or decreasing the age of consent then i cannot see any reasonable reason why we shouldn't.

Now i must try to get at least some sleep and i will try finish reading this thread tomorrow.

This post reads to me like this:
I think rape is rotten, but I'm attracted to teenage girls, so we should lower the age of consent so I won't be doing something that I think is rotten.

 

[Rufo]

see ya in 30 days.

That'll change the dynamics of the thread a bit.

This post reads to me like this:
I think rape is rotten, but I'm attracted to teenage girls, so we should lower the age of consent so I won't be doing something that I think is rotten.

Boys. Also, why do you assume he is doing any such thing?

 

[bookitty]

This post reads to me like this:
I think rape is rotten, but I'm attracted to teenage girls, so we should lower the age of consent so I won't be doing something that I think is rotten.

That's odd. I read exactly the opposite meaning into it. Something more like "I like teens and am sexually attracted to them but I don't want to hurt them. The rape thing is my own game which I play with a different type of partner."

Having re-read it, I totally see where you are coming from. I just didn't get that.

Combined with his next post, it's given me a lot to think about. I would still like to see the age of consent set at 16 (With Romeo and Juliette laws in place), that hasn't changed. But obviously I don't know as much about the culture around hebephilia/ephebophilia as I thought and need to examine my own bias.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

[snip lecturing]

Whether you are aware of it or not, every time you have sex with a woman you are making a tacit judgment about her ability to consent. With adults it is usually obvious, but what if she's been drinking? At what point does it shift from loosened up to not thinking clearly? Legally we can define a term (like reasonable), describe it, and have case law surrounding it, but ultimately it's a subjective judgment by the jurors/judge. That's just how it works.

Don't assume I am happy about the way such laws or intellectual property laws work, either. I'd give a counter example, but I'll stop here because I think I will be going off-topic. I think we would just be dancing around our main disagreement about whether it is better to have clear standards so that one knows when one is committing a crime, or to have a judge rule on a teen's maturity for every sex act.

Agreed wholeheartedly. "Abstinence only" doesn't give teens enough information to understand the consequences, variations, joys and impact of sex. There is a lot more to sex than "tab A goes into slot B" and more to safe sex than just "use a condom!"

Thank you for the stats. They are worrisome but it is better to have a more detailed understanding of the situation.

Personally, I think the problem with the statistics, and the problem with my sex ed class, was that it focused almost exclusively on the "guy pressuring girl" trope. "Men use love for sex, women use sex for love" was practically the theme of our class. And older women have sex with young guys too, just look at the teachers they arrested a while back (and more interestingly, how the public reacted). Also, the one case of teacher/student relations was between two guys. And, of course, gays didn't exist in the sex ed class.

Anyway, to elaborate on my original story, there were a lot of interpretations of two minors and statutory rape. They were:

A) It is all good
B) The guy will be charged
C) Both will be charged
D) Up to legal authority's judgement

I know it isn't A, but that was the most common answer at school. I am still not really sure, but luckily I don't need to worry about it anymore.

And even if we make Romeo and Juliet exceptions, then what about two minors below that cut-off?

Personally, I've found high schoolers to be insufferable even when I attended high school, so I think anyone who wants a relationship with one must be crazy . To be honest, when I first clicked on this thread I thought I would be arguing on the other side. I started having sex at a very young age, and if I could go back and change things, I wouldn't. I know the effects psychologists will say it had on me, but I don't view them as negatives. We gain maturity through experiencing hardship, and what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

(Note: The last bit isn't really my desired policy, but it is something I honestly think from time to time. I think it is some sort of coping mechanism.)

 

[bookitty]

Personally, I think the problem with the statistics, and the problem with my sex ed class, was that it focused almost exclusively on the "guy pressuring girl" trope. "Men use love for sex, women use sex for love" was practically the theme of our class. And older women have sex with young guys too, just look at the teachers they arrested a while back (and more interestingly, how the public reacted). Also, the one case of teacher/student relations was between two guys. And, of course, gays didn't exist in the sex ed class.

That's my biggest problem with sex ed as it is taught now. It's very danger-focused. Yes, that information needs to be included but sex is way more than the don'ts. Wouldn't it be better to give non-penetrative acts a lot more attention? From what I can tell, they are tossed in as an afterthought and usually associated with prophylactic use.

In a weird way, I'm glad that my niece goes to a Christian school and is a bit hung up on virginity because when she starts being sexually active, she'll hold off on intercourse and explore everything else first. But I don't want her to feel that everything but intercourse is some sort of pallid compromise instead of something to be enjoyed for what it is. (Still haven't figured out how that talk is gonna go.)

I can't believe they're still ignoring sex ed for gay teens. That's a bit cruel.

Anyway, to elaborate on my original story, there were a lot of interpretations of two minors and statutory rape. They were:

A) It is all good
B) The guy will be charged
C) Both will be charged
D) Up to legal authority's judgement

I know it isn't A, but that was the most common answer at school. I am still not really sure, but luckily I don't need to worry about it anymore.

And even if we make Romeo and Juliet exceptions, then what about two minors below that cut-off?

Makes sense that A would be the most common answer in high school. It's what they know. Sex between peers in high school can be awkward, can be dangerous, can be all those bad after-school special things. But usually it is all good. Hormones racing and emotions at a constant fever pitch can lead to selfishness or impulsiveness but it can also lead to intensely positive experiences as well. I just don't have a problem with sex between teens. It's a fairly level playing field. (Yes, there are always some exceptions.)

Personally, I've found high schoolers to be insufferable even when I attended high school, so I think anyone who wants a relationship with one must be crazy . To be honest, when I first clicked on this thread I thought I would be arguing on the other side. I started having sex at a very young age, and if I could go back and change things, I wouldn't. I know the effects psychologists will say it had on me, but I don't view them as negatives. We gain maturity through experiencing hardship, and what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

(Note: The last bit isn't really my desired policy, but it is something I honestly think from time to time. I think it is some sort of coping mechanism.)

Yeah, I don't get the attraction to teens. My husband is 6 years younger than me. He joked one time about how he would have loved to have met me when he was 16 and the idea just grossed me out.

We are what our lives have made us, good and bad. So it makes sense that you wouldn't want to change even a negative experience. But do you think you would want to protect other people from the same sorts of things?

 

[JJM 777]

Right, so anything should be able to sleep with anything!

We were making wild hyperbolic statements, right?

No, I just point out that if _vulnerability_ is your concern, then write a law that _vulnerable_ people are protected (for example, by organizing controlled circumstances where they can act safely). No matter their age. See the point?

 

[bookitty]

No, I just point out that if _vulnerability_ is your concern, then write a law that _vulnerable_ people are protected (for example, by organizing controlled circumstances where they can act safely). No matter their age. See the point?

Yes and no. It's almost as if you want to level the playing field entirely and give everyone the same exact degree of safety, freedom, and control. But the only way to do that is to either reduce choice and chance to a minimum or to write laws for each and every individual. Since we really can't do either of those things, we compromise by recognizing that specific groups have unique challenges. Teenagers are in the process of developing a sexual identity, this stage has specific and unique areas of vulnerability which are protected by age of consent laws.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Age of Consent was before my time, by I have fond remembrances of the Age of Statutory Rape....good times.

 

[Arcade22]

It is very interesting that you flip between the two states of vulnerability. This is counter to the standard view of hebephilia/ephebophilia.

Which is?

From an outside perspective it seems as if you feel that you are giving to the teens what you are getting from older/bigger partners. Especially with the emphasis on affection.

Of course.

While there have been studies that show teen girls risk more psychological damage from early sexual experiences, I don't know if there have been any studies related to early sexual experience with homosexual boys. If you have any information, let me know.

I have no specific statistics related to it.

It's probably both depending on the teen and the partner.

Of course it's no good if someone just uses someone like a sex toy, not caring about their emotions and their wellbeing, and then throws them out when they get worn out, but i can't really see that as the same as a consensual relationship built on mutual affection, even if the law is totally blind on the matter.

A real life example: i was browsing a board when some 14 year old boy had posted a thread about the fact that he wanted to "experiment with someone". Now most of these are smart enough to lie or about their age, usually not mentioning it at all (the website is 18+, i think the age of consent in America is 16-18) so they don't get banned. Now, if he were nearby and he was interested in me and he actually wanted me to "experiment" with him and i did can you actually justify me being punished for this?

 

[Arcade22]

This post reads to me like this:
I think rape is rotten, but I'm attracted to teenage girls, so we should lower the age of consent so I won't be doing something that I think is rotten.

No. I could never rape someone (note: I'm talking about actual rape here). I couldn't care less if have consensual sex with someone and the law tells me it's rape, sexual assault, terrorism, crime against nature, sodomy, buggery or whatever colorful words people can come up with. Now of course i don't want to have my head cut off, be thrown in jail, be fined, be forced to do community service and etc but that's just pure self-preservation.

Yes i know, i don't give a **** the about the laws and societies views. I'm just that awesome.

 

[varwoche]

The fact that the medical literature stands in (virtual) unanimity against the ideas expressed in the OP...

Do you agree with this Arcade?

If no, then please cite some sources.

If yes, then why should your unfounded speculation be taken any more seriously than other situations when people foist beliefs that diametrically contradict the published expertise? Such as, the efficacy of homeopathy.

 

[Arcade22]

Do you agree with this Arcade?

If no, then please cite some sources.

If yes, then why should your unfounded speculation be taken any more seriously than other situations when people foist beliefs that diametrically contradict the published expertise? Such as, the efficacy of homeopathy.

I'm going to have to confess that i mostly based the OP on my own subjective experience growing up. Looking stuff up on wikipedia I see that i was wrong in saying that "the majority of all 13 and over are actively searching for sex". It was apparently a small minority. As people have already said a whole lot of these kids, mostly girls, are more likely to have health problems amongst other things. I can't say why that is but i assume a whole lot of these people are close to those that party, drink and generally have more loose and permissive morals. Sex, fighting and generally acting like ******** isn't uncommon. Not exactly a good and upstanding group of people.

Though just because it's a small minority and that they are more likely to have mental health problems and generally a "worse childhood" isn't good enough reason to lock up people for having consensual sex with them unless one can show that it reduces the amount of problems and suffering. A whole lot of these kids are going to have sex no matter what you do and locking up their older partner (because I'm hoping that no one is insane enough to advocate locking up minors that have sex with each-other) is going to take a whole lot of money, time and basically ruins the life of the older partner.

Two examples that i feel have relevance: Anal Sex and the cannibal guy.

I don't know how many people repeatedly indulge in anal sex but i assume it's the minority, maybe in the range so that you could describe it as being "normal". Is anal sex dangerous? Absolutely. Has anal sex led to pain, suffering and even death? Undoubtedly. Is the best response to this risk to lock people up for having anal sex, perhaps even killing them like we have done before? No.

Now in this outrageous case in which a German (i think) butchered and ate a guy he had found on the internet. He was apparently willingly and consensually (i think) killed and eaten by this guy. Should this be illegal even though they were apparently two adults who willingly indulged in death and cannibalism? Yes. (though this might be a case for another thread)

I mean if wanted we could have total sexual freedom and allow parents to have sex with their six month old babies but i don't think any sane people would allow something like that to happen.

ETA: a better example might be that we don't allow people who know that they are infected with an STD to have unprotected sex with someone without telling them about their infection. One could argue that the risk is too small for the partner to get the STD so there's no point in telling them but that's demonstrably wrong.

 

[bookitty]

Which is?

Of course.

I have no specific statistics related to it.


Of course it's no good if someone just uses someone like a sex toy, not caring about their emotions and their wellbeing, and then throws them out when they get worn out, but i can't really see that as the same as a consensual relationship built on mutual affection, even if the law is totally blind on the matter.

If a person is attracted to 14 year-olds, then there isn't much chance for a long-term relationship. Of course, this only applies to those who are attracted to 14 year-olds exclusively but it is one of the reasons why hebephilia is seen as predatory.

Very few relationships started at 14 have the potential to be long term. This is part of the process. Which is why adults should stay out of it. They already know what happens, how it works. Same-age partners learn together how to break it off when it's not working, or how to nurture a relationship with potential. They form their own ideas about how they want it to go.

A real life example: i was browsing a board when some 14 year old boy had posted a thread about the fact that he wanted to "experiment with someone". Now most of these are smart enough to lie or about their age, usually not mentioning it at all (the website is 18+, i think the age of consent in America is 16-18) so they don't get banned. Now, if he were nearby and he was interested in me and he actually wanted me to "experiment" with him and i did can you actually justify me being punished for this?

This boy is very vulnerable right now. He's too naive to cover his tracks for one thing. He's also a gay 14 year-old who doesn't have anyone to experiment with. Depending on where he lives, he may not feel safe coming out of the closet. So he's young, desperate and horny.

Let's say you lived nearby, and the two of you got together. There are a lot of ways this could go. Best case scenario - It could be great. It could be a turning point in his life where he realizes that sex is nifty and he comes to terms with being gay. A more experienced partner gives him a safe place to explore with the bonus of safe sex practices being taught in a very proactive environment. Feeling wanted could improve his self-esteem. There would be no psychological damage.

Worst case - it could turn out that he's horny but not yet ready for sex. That he's too inexperienced to know what he wants and too insecure to slow things down if they get too intense. The sex goes farther than he wanted and becomes date rape. He feels used or hurt but has nowhere to turn afterward. (There are precious little resources for a gay 14 year-old who went to meet some guy on the 'net.) The psychological damage would be severe.

There is no way to regulate for the best case scenario. Even if there were most relationships will fall somewhere in between. Unless there is a compelling reason to believe that the best case scenario is the norm, that the worst case scenario is not damaging, or that there is some distinct benefit to the middle ground, the age of consent laws need to be in place.

 

[varwoche]

I'm going to have to confess that i mostly based the OP on my own subjective experience growing up. <snip non-seq essay>

Indeed.

And even though you bypassed the question that was the gist of my post...

Why should your unfounded speculation be taken any more seriously than other situations when people foist beliefs that diametrically contradict the published expertise?

... so far as I'm concerned, question answered.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No, I just point out that if _vulnerability_ is your concern, then write a law that _vulnerable_ people are protected (for example, by organizing controlled circumstances where they can act safely). No matter their age. See the point?

Yes I do. You think there exists a condition in which it is okay to have sex with small children. My point is that such a condition does not exist because the problem is not the location or the surroundings.

Another point you should understand is that without some people excelling, the human race would have been or will be an evolutionary dead end. Still another is that there is no way for everyone to be treated equally, because: under what form of government, according to what standards, under what religion or lack thereof, according to what cultural standards, under whose control, and so on through the most obvious questions I feel I've ever had to ask a person to demonstrate to them how utterly flawed and doomed their overarching position is.