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.
each case has to be reviewed and decided upon by a non biased person...I know of parents who accused an 18 year old guy of statuatory rape and ruined his life when in fact the younger girl was the one persuing him and both even said so... the parents just couldn't believe their little girl would do "such a thing"... there's plenty more of those cases.
I truly hope congress changes the name from Statutory Rape to something more fitting. The name is a total low blow for those who have been Raped.
The subject is extremely touchy however I do not see it as SR if one 18 yo & 17 yo decide to indulge in eachother.
Can SR damage the person(s) involved. I don't believe damage is the correct term; absolutely affects those involved but damaged I'm not completely sure of.
I truly hope congress changes the name from Statutory Rape to something more fitting. The name is a total low blow for those who have been Raped.
The subject is extremely touchy however I do not see it as SR if one 18 yo & 17 yo decide to indulge in eachother.
Can SR damage the person(s) involved. I don't believe damage is the correct term; absolutely affects those involved but damaged I'm not completely sure of.
It's usually not formally called statutory rape, that is just a layman's term for a case involving an underage but willing sex partner.
Congress doesn't have authority to changes state laws. Most sex crime prosecutions are not federal. Although the intrusion of the feds leads to some odd results; for instance, two 17-year-olds may be legally married in a state--but if they record themselves having sex and take the video across state lines, they are considered to be trafficking in child pornography.
There was a thread here a few days ago where the topic of statutory rape came up. Some posters thought that statutory rape is a serious crime that has far reaching implications for the victim. This seems to be a belief that a lot of people hold - that the young person is damaged for life from their experience. I really wonder if that is generally the case though or if statutory rape laws really have more to do with society's view on sex than the implications for the "victim". Is a 14-15-year old girl really harmed by having a sexual relationship with an 18-19-year old boy or even an older man? Why would it be more damaging for a 15-year old to have sex with a 20-year old than another 15-year old?
Also, if statutory rape is damaging to the younger person is it different for boys and girls? There has been a lot of talk about the female teachers who have had sex with male students and some seem to be of the opinion that the boys are harmed by the experience while others argue that they are just living every teenage boy's dream to have sex with the teacher. You never hear that argument when it comes to girls though. They are always victims and considered to have been taken advantage of. Couldn't some of the girls be living their dream to have sex with an older, sexy guy?
What do you think? Are the teenagers damaged victims or willing participants who are just fine with it?
Young girls often don't know what they want or what is good for them. Any guy who would use that to get sex, is a cad and deserves to sit in jail.
each case has to be reviewed and decided upon by a non biased person...I know of parents who accused an 18 year old guy of statuatory rape and ruined his life when in fact the younger girl was the one persuing him and both even said so... the parents just couldn't believe their little girl would do "such a thing"... there's plenty more of those cases.
How true. I know someone, through my job at a mental health agency, who was convicted of statutory rape and the subsequent jail time and felony record has complicated the life of an already vulnerable young person. He was 19 and she was 14 (almost 15), never met her before and believed she was about his age; both were intoxicated at a party. All parties agreed to the facts; she said it was consensual, but she is not old enough to legally consent, so he was convicted and permanently labeled a sexual offender. Who is really the victim here?
My question isn't so much "should we have a statutory rape law". I think we should and, yes, you have to draw the line somewhere. I understand that there are cognitive differences between people of different ages as well as a power difference. What I don't believe is that the younger person is emotionally or psychologically damaged or harmed by having sex with an older person any more than they would having sex with someone closer to their age. I don't see why a 15-year old would be harmed for life, or at all, from having sex with a 20-year old but wouldn't be if their partner was also 15. The act is the same. I know from personal experience, having had an older boyfriend as a teenager, that it did not harm me in any way. Maybe it would have been wiser not to try to grow up so fast but I am not emotionally or psychologically damaged as society thinks I should have been. That's my point.
My question isn't so much "should we have a statutory rape law". I think we should and, yes, you have to draw the line somewhere. I understand that there are cognitive differences between people of different ages as well as a power difference. What I don't believe is that the younger person is emotionally or psychologically damaged or harmed by having sex with an older person any more than they would having sex with someone closer to their age. I don't see why a 15-year old would be harmed for life, or at all, from having sex with a 20-year old but wouldn't be if their partner was also 15. The act is the same. I know from personal experience, having had an older boyfriend as a teenager, that it did not harm me in any way. Maybe it would have been wiser not to try to grow up so fast but I am not emotionally or psychologically damaged as society thinks I should have been. That's my point.
Then why should there be age of consent laws? Remember, those were created before no-contact orders existed. Now that they do they obviate the need for the courts to automatically slam down on the older person in a relationship with a minor. Now parents have the tools available to put a stop to relationships they think are inappropriate, and without automatically ruining someone else's life.
Then why should there be age of consent laws? Remember, those were created before no-contact orders existed. Now that they do they obviate the need for the courts to automatically slam down on the older person in a relationship with a minor. Now parents have the tools available to put a stop to relationships they think are inappropriate, and without automatically ruining someone else's life.
This is an interesting point, and I can already see some objections to it, but I would agree tentatively that it should not be a criminal offense. I would instead define it a tort against the parents, actionable in the civil system if they chose to sue the person who tumbled their son or daughter. The child should then have the option to countersue for emancipation and marry the defendant. If he or she was found competent to make that decision, the parents' suit would be dismissed. That would be my ideal way of handling the matter, in a way that would take into account both parental interest in controlling their kids and the interest of everyone in control over their personal associations.
Of course, the question arises of how young you are going to allow this; few people would agree that parents ought to be able to permit their kindergartners to have sex. I think an age of 13 would be entirely reasonable, though.
My question isn't so much "should we have a statutory rape law". I think we should and, yes, you have to draw the line somewhere. I understand that there are cognitive differences between people of different ages as well as a power difference. What I don't believe is that the younger person is emotionally or psychologically damaged or harmed by having sex with an older person any more than they would having sex with someone closer to their age. I don't see why a 15-year old would be harmed for life, or at all, from having sex with a 20-year old but wouldn't be if their partner was also 15. The act is the same. I know from personal experience, having had an older boyfriend as a teenager, that it did not harm me in any way. Maybe it would have been wiser not to try to grow up so fast but I am not emotionally or psychologically damaged as society thinks I should have been. That's my point.
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 problem is they can be coerced more easily by an older person.
To coerce means to persuade through force or threats or intimidation. If force or threats are used, it's no longer statutory rape, but forcible rape.
Persuasion by other means is not coercion.
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.
