Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is they can be coerced more easily by an older person. My rape was considered statutory but I was coerced (and had been drinking - first time I'd ever had alcohol). The guilt I felt because I didn't fight colored decisions I made years later. I devalued myself. I became self destructive. In many ways I still have not healed and this happened 39 years ago.
So, yes, statutory rape is a crime. Children should be protected by adults not used by them for sex.
The idea "I didn't fight" tells me this isn't exactly statutory either. Sounds like rape to me
I don't think "statutory rape" should even be a crime because it seems like the vast majority of times it's the "overage" person who is the real victim in the situation when all the dust has settled (by virtue of facing charges for something that shouldn't be considered criminal).
I mean, I feel like this is a typical "case" of "statutory rape":
-The "overage" person meets some girl (or guy) at an event which is clearly meant for an overage-crowd (a party with alcohol, a bar, some kind of place where it would be logical to assume that anyone there is older than [whatever the age of consent is])
-The "underage" person in question does not make it known that they are underage
-The two hit it off and the "overage" person does what anyone would reasonably do when interacting with someone that they perceive to be of the same age in this type of situation - try to see if their mutual fondness of each other could lead to sex.
-The underage person goes along with it and allows it to happen. Then either:
a) the parents find out and press charges, even though the "underage" person is not opposed to what happened,
b) the underage person later regrets it and decides that it might help them reconcile what happened if they pretend they are a victim and report the "offender", even though the only reason it happened was because they let it (or even wanted it to happen),
c) the underage person was fine with it, but then the overage person never called them again, or it didn't work out like the underage had hoped it would, so they try to get back at the person by reporting them.
How can the overage person be at fault at all in any of these cases? How is it their fault that the underage person didn't tell them that they were in fact underage? How is it their fault that the underage person was willing to go along with it?
Other times it seems like it's just an arbitrary age difference that ends up screwing the "overage" person. Two kids in the same grade happen to have birthdays that make it so one is 18 and the other is still 17 for a few more months (or one is 16 and the other is 15, whatever the "illegal" line is drawn at), so anytime they have consensual sex, that's somehow "rape"? Even though the 18 (or 16) year old could go and have sex with a different classmate who has a birthday that makes them the same age and that's completely fine? It makes no sense.
Granted, there are some cases that are legitimately rape, but why can't that just be charged as normal "rape"? If it happened against the person's will, whether they are 15, 17, or 57, it's a crime regardless.
I don't think "statutory rape" should even be a crime because it seems like the vast majority of times it's the "overage" person who is the real victim in the situation when all the dust has settled (by virtue of facing charges for something that shouldn't be considered criminal).
I mean, I feel like this is a typical "case" of "statutory rape":
-The "overage" person meets some girl (or guy) at an event which is clearly meant for an overage-crowd (a party with alcohol, a bar, some kind of place where it would be logical to assume that anyone there is older than [whatever the age of consent is])
-The "underage" person in question does not make it known that they are underage
-The two hit it off and the "overage" person does what anyone would reasonably do when interacting with someone that they perceive to be of the same age in this type of situation - try to see if their mutual fondness of each other could lead to sex.
-The underage person goes along with it and allows it to happen. Then either:
a) the parents find out and press charges, even though the "underage" person is not opposed to what happened,
b) the underage person later regrets it and decides that it might help them reconcile what happened if they pretend they are a victim and report the "offender", even though the only reason it happened was because they let it (or even wanted it to happen),
c) the underage person was fine with it, but then the overage person never called them again, or it didn't work out like the underage had hoped it would, so they try to get back at the person by reporting them.
How can the overage person be at fault at all in any of these cases? How is it their fault that the underage person didn't tell them that they were in fact underage? How is it their fault that the underage person was willing to go along with it?
Other times it seems like it's just an arbitrary age difference that ends up screwing the "overage" person. Two kids in the same grade happen to have birthdays that make it so one is 18 and the other is still 17 for a few more months (or one is 16 and the other is 15, whatever the "illegal" line is drawn at), so anytime they have consensual sex, that's somehow "rape"? Even though the 18 (or 16) year old could go and have sex with a different classmate who has a birthday that makes them the same age and that's completely fine? It makes no sense.
Granted, there are some cases that are legitimately rape, but why can't that just be charged as normal "rape"? If it happened against the person's will, whether they are 15, 17, or 57, it's a crime regardless.
Plus girls mature faster and kids in general are having sex younger than ever. And as I stated above, AoC is outdated and takes power away from parents. If parents want to protect/control their kids then they can get a restraining order. Also, if we do keep AoC, drop it to 16 and add a peer loophole so kids school-aged aren't prosecuted. If they're in school together, +1 or 2 years, they shouldn't be able to be charged IMO.
Plus girls mature faster and kids in general are having sex younger than ever. And as I stated above, AoC is outdated and takes power away from parents. If parents want to protect/control their kids then they can get a restraining order. Also, if we do keep AoC, drop it to 16 and add a peer loophole so kids school-aged aren't prosecuted. If they're in school together, +1 or 2 years, they shouldn't be able to be charged IMO.
It is 16 in most U.S. states, but unfortunately not all of them have "Romeo and Juliet" laws. The ones that do are usually more generous than 1 or 2 years though.
Some 14-year-olds are pre-menstrual, and physiologically and psychologically children.
I have never heard of a 14 year old being pre-menstrual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
The problem is they can be coerced more easily by an older person. My rape was considered statutory but I was coerced (and had been drinking - first time I'd ever had alcohol). The guilt I felt because I didn't fight colored decisions I made years later. I devalued myself. I became self destructive. In many ways I still have not healed and this happened 39 years ago.
There is such a thing as holding on to bad experiences and not letting them go. Most of us have unfortunate experiences when young, but most of us put them in their place and leave them there. Sometimes they have an effect on our behavior or conviction in certain cases, but for the most part, they are left in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoulesMSU
I don't think "statutory rape" should even be a crime because it seems like the vast majority of times it's the "overage" person who is the real victim in the situation when all the dust has settled (by virtue of facing charges for something that shouldn't be considered criminal).
It's odd that it would suit you to think the perpetrator would be considered the victim. If a girl pretends to be of age, there is no obligation on the part of the male to MAKE SURE the girl is of age before having sex with her? Because of statutory rape laws, you'd think it would be in the best interest of the man to forego sex when age seems questionable. That would be the SMART thing to do.
""In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent.""
Rape:
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person
Since statutory rape isn't rape at all, how could it possibly be a traumatic experience to make an impact on the girl for life? When people experience even traumatic events, sure, it affects their lives, but they sooner or later put it in it's place and move on. It's unhealthy to dwell on bad experiences and allow them to lead the direction of your life.
I say it causes more regret than damage.
Young teens who consent to sex with someone above age aren't being forced into anything. It's just wrong because our government says it's wrong.
I think by the time that teen turns older they will regret that decision, but I doubt that any consented sex causes damage.
I have never heard of a 14 year old being pre-menstrual.
Since statutory rape isn't rape at all, how could it possibly be a traumatic experience to make an impact on the girl for life? When people experience even traumatic events, sure, it affects their lives, but they sooner or later put it in it's place and move on. It's unhealthy to dwell on bad experiences and allow them to lead the direction of your life.
I think the poster meant that some 14 year olds haven't started to yet menstruate, unusual, but perfectly plausible.
I don't think "statutory rape" should even be a crime because it seems like the vast majority of times it's the "overage" person who is the real victim in the situation when all the dust has settled (by virtue of facing charges for something that shouldn't be considered criminal).
I mean, I feel like this is a typical "case" of "statutory rape":
-The "overage" person meets some girl (or guy) at an event which is clearly meant for an overage-crowd (a party with alcohol, a bar, some kind of place where it would be logical to assume that anyone there is older than [whatever the age of consent is])
-The "underage" person in question does not make it known that they are underage
-The two hit it off and the "overage" person does what anyone would reasonably do when interacting with someone that they perceive to be of the same age in this type of situation - try to see if their mutual fondness of each other could lead to sex.
-The underage person goes along with it and allows it to happen. Then either:
a) the parents find out and press charges, even though the "underage" person is not opposed to what happened,
b) the underage person later regrets it and decides that it might help them reconcile what happened if they pretend they are a victim and report the "offender", even though the only reason it happened was because they let it (or even wanted it to happen),
c) the underage person was fine with it, but then the overage person never called them again, or it didn't work out like the underage had hoped it would, so they try to get back at the person by reporting them.
How can the overage person be at fault at all in any of these cases? How is it their fault that the underage person didn't tell them that they were in fact underage? How is it their fault that the underage person was willing to go along with it?
Other times it seems like it's just an arbitrary age difference that ends up screwing the "overage" person. Two kids in the same grade happen to have birthdays that make it so one is 18 and the other is still 17 for a few more months (or one is 16 and the other is 15, whatever the "illegal" line is drawn at), so anytime they have consensual sex, that's somehow "rape"? Even though the 18 (or 16) year old could go and have sex with a different classmate who has a birthday that makes them the same age and that's completely fine? It makes no sense.
Granted, there are some cases that are legitimately rape, but why can't that just be charged as normal "rape"? If it happened against the person's will, whether they are 15, 17, or 57, it's a crime regardless.
While I think some statuatory rape cases might occur in the circumstances you describe, I don't at all think they are the majority of cases. In the city I live in, the police are very stringent about monitoring bars for compliance with underage drinking laws..so the likelihood of a minor getting in a bar is much less likely than it was when iI was a teenager.
I honestly can't see how statutory rape could cause ANY damage to the victim other than regret. That victim isn't really a victim, it was consented sex and to call it any form of rape is absurd. It's under-aged consented sex. If parents had more of an upperhand over the child, then maybe we would have less of these "statutory rape cases"
I agree there is a huge difference between a 15 y.o and a 20 y.o developmently. These laws are in place for good reason, however I do question the states that allow someone to MARRY at an age which they cannot legally give consent. This makes no sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
