[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Statutory Rape (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/11/2012 10:05:36 AM EDT
|
Reading the story below really makes me wish this country would pass a mandatory, minimum age for sexual contact. What is a felony in one state is perfectly legal in another. I think it is wrong that a person, in this story's case a 29 year old guy, would be arrested, branded a sex offender, and possibly get many years in prison for something that is completely legal just a few hundred miles away in another state.
Nationwide a minimum age of 16, 17, 18, or whatever should be imposed. Florida for example, has a crazy law. Anyone under the age of 24 can have sexual contact with someone 16 years of age and older, but anyone over the age of 23 can only have sexual contact with those 18 years of age and older. So basically a 23 year old guy could be dating a 16 year old and it is completely legal, but let's say he turns 24 and she turns 17 on the same day, then bam! It is instantly a felony for him! Just make it 18 years of age across the country and let's start having some fair treatment! Discuss! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/31/ap-exclusive-dead-officer-was-intimate-with-girl/?intcmp=obinsite |
|
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. |
|
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. |
|
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency |
|
Quoted:
Reading the story below really makes me wish this country would pass a mandatory, minimum age for sexual contact. What is a felony in one state is perfectly legal in another. I think it is wrong that a person, in this story's case a 29 year old guy, would be arrested, branded a sex offender, and possibly get many years in prison for something that is completely legal just a few hundred miles away in another state. Nationwide a minimum age of 16, 17, 18, or whatever should be imposed. Florida for example, has a crazy law. Anyone under the age of 24 can have sexual contact with someone 16 years of age and older, but anyone over the age of 23 can only have sexual contact with those 18 years of age and older. So basically a 23 year old guy could be dating a 16 year old and it is completely legal, but let's say he turns 24 and she turns 17 on the same day, then bam! It is instantly a felony for him! Just make it 18 years of age across the country and let's start having some fair treatment! Discuss! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/31/ap-exclusive-dead-officer-was-intimate-with-girl/?intcmp=obinsite Sorry but Bullshit and FUCK HIM... He was in a position of Authority over her and he was Banging her..Period. She was under 18 and he was a COP, and he was banging her..period. Age of Consent here is 16..the other half can be 60..and it Doesnt matter..UNLESS the older person is in a position of Authority such as a Cop, or a teacher.. You want to fuck underage girls? have at you..Turn in your badge and gun FIRST though. if I catch another cop banging a 17 year-old, im going to lock him or her up..it really IS that simple. NO Sympathy for that Guy... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency Is there a difference between a 6yo or 9yo and a 16 or 17yo? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. Technically there is a federal law. 16 years of age is the minimum, however, in these kind of sex cases state law trumps federal law so states can still prosecute based on state law. Besides gun laws, there are very few types of crimes that vary so greatly from state to state. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If your 18+, date 18+ all the time. You wont get in trouble in ANY state. This is pretty easy. But she told me she was 18 and she looked like she was 18...  I had one of my little lambs not too long ago sarcastically say "What, should i check her ID before she blows me??" He didnt like My answer very much....Especially when i pointed out the the bar he was hanging in was Notorious for letting underage girls in to drink.. You want to throw YOUR career away like that, it's on you sport..but if she looks under 30, i'm checking ID before we play any games...Im just glad im NOT single anymore..these kids today are SCARY..they just didnt mature like that 27 years ago. |
|
Quoted:
Sorry but Bullshit and FUCK HIM... He was in a position of Authority over her and he was Banging her..Period. She was under 18 and he was a COP, and he was banging her..period. Age of Consent here is 16..the other half can be 60..and it Doesnt matter..UNLESS the older person is in a position of Authority such as a Cop, or a teacher.. You want to fuck underage girls? have at you..Turn in your badge and gun FIRST though. if I catch another cop banging a 17 year-old, im going to lock him or her up..it really IS that simple. NO Sympathy for that Guy... Interesting. I dont know the answer to the question the OP asked. But I have a daughter and hope that when she is of age I will have taught her how to take care of her self well enough that she doesnt need the government to tell her what to do. That said, rape is rape. If it could be proven that it was forcible rape, send the rapist to the firing line. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool name. Hook them up with the law. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. |
|
Or we could just let natural law decide what is and isn't rape: pre-menstrual with or without consent = rape, post-mentrual with consent = not rape. That's not to say we shouldn't allow society to dictate certain terms aka a legally binding moral code for any sex outside of marriage regardless of the age of the participants. |
|
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. really? A kid can be talked into pretty much anything. When that pedophile convinces the 7 year old that it is okay, you fine with that? Yes, a 16 year old is different than a 7 year old, but we need to draw the line somewhere. States can decide where to draw the line themselves. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency Don't be obtuse. 'Getting a 5 year old to say yes' clearly falls under the category of coercion. The whole point is that it's a State issue. This nanny-state 'consistency' bullshit is a big part of the problem in this country. Make the laws as you see fit where you live, and leave other States the fuck out of it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. A minor is unable to give consent, no matter what they say. As are some mentally disable persons of any age. Non-consensual sex is called rape. Should we not use the term rape to describe sex with an unconscious person? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency Is there a difference between a 6yo or 9yo and a 16 or 17yo? The way the above poster stated that 'rape is rape' and 'consent is consent' yes, the structure he wants put in place DO say that a 6yo, 9yo, 16yo, and 17yo are ALL fair game as long as they say yes, so there IS no difference... again, if the guy above had his way |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. A minor is unable to give consent. As are some mentally disable persons of any age. Non-consensual sex is called rape. Should we not use the term rape to describe sex with an unconscious person? And yet in many of these same states a minor is legally able to give consent to have a fetus ripped out of her womb ........ |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. really? A kid can be talked into pretty much anything. When that pedophile convinces the 7 year old that it is okay, you fine with that? Yes, a 16 year old is different than a 7 year old, but we need to draw the line somewhere. States can decide where to draw the line themselves. coercedpast participle, past tense of co·erce (Verb)
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency Is there a difference between a 6yo or 9yo and a 16 or 17yo? The way the above poster stated that 'rape is rape' and 'consent is consent' yes, the structure he wants put in place DO say that a 6yo, 9yo, 16yo, and 17yo are ALL fair game as long as they say yes, so there IS no difference... again, if the guy above had his way Um, no. Try again. Beginning with where I included 'coerced' in my statement. Thanks for playing, clown. |
|
Quoted:
What bothers me is when 2 minors are having sex for years, then one turns 18 before the other one... NOW it's rape...  To my knowledge, unless there is a very LARGE age gap between the two already, that is never a crime. But if a 17 year old is banging a 13 year old, I have no problem going after him/her once he/she turns 18. |
|
Quoted: I agree. I've managed a business since I was 18 where many of my employees are underage and female. I've been hit on more than a few times by underage employees and have even been told "I won't tell anyone." Even at 18 I knew saying anything other than "no thanks" is wrong. The guy is in a position of authority and should have known better. Sorry but Bullshit and FUCK HIM... He was in a position of Authority over her and he was Banging her..Period. She was under 18 and he was a COP, and he was banging her..period. Age of Consent here is 16..the other half can be 60..and it Doesnt matter..UNLESS the older person is in a position of Authority such as a Cop, or a teacher.. You want to fuck underage girls? have at you..Turn in your badge and gun FIRST though. if I catch another cop banging a 17 year-old, im going to lock him or her up..it really IS that simple. NO Sympathy for that Guy... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool name. Hook them up with the law. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. It is the perfect name for it because the name implies exactly what it is. It is rape by statute. Under the statute no one under a certain age is legally able to consent to sex. Non consensual sex is rape so the name fits perfectly. |
|
There was a big deal about statutory rape laws back in Michigan about 15 years ago because of a case that came up. This 18 year old high school senior had sex with a 15 year old high school sophomore and wound up getting charged with statutory rape when the girl's parents found out. Ruined the kid's life. Personally, I think the whole "age of consent" thing is nonsense. If a 15 year old slut has sex with five different 16 year old boys then it's legal, but if she has sex with a 20 year old then he's a felon and a child molester. I call bullshit. Besides, 15 and 16 year old "girls" were getting married and having kids for all of human history, up until the 1900s. And no, I have no interest in having sex with 15 year old girls, I just think that legislating when and with whom someone can have sex is stupid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool name. Hook them up with the law. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. Except that a minor really is not in a position to consent- because of legal definitions but also as a matter of practicality, which the law was written to address when the seemingly inconsistant and incoherent definitions were written.(To prevent young people who have not reached maturation from being victimized, the law places greater burdens on people of majority in many states). It is comparable to many states considering consent by intoxicated persons to be non-consent because of the effects of alcohol on the brain and its ability to make decisions. |
|
Quoted: Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. This. I will say that I am fine with presuming coercion below a certain age. It's understood that persons who are not yet "adults" (however we choose to define that) are not competent to make certain decisions; and no matter how much the libs try to tear down any sense of morality and decency, becoming sexually active is a significant life decision with far-reaching consequences. But, it's an issue for the states, perhaps even smaller entities, and should remain such, even if that confuses some young people to the point where they end up in trouble. If you can't understand the results of your sex life - to include legal ramifications - you probably aren't mature enough to deal with a sex life. Moreover, it would be tragic for you to inadvertently procreate if you lack the capacity to grasp the environment in which you operate. Actions have consequences, figure it out... and don't ever advocate for greater federal authority unless you want more unintended consequences. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency Is there a difference between a 6yo or 9yo and a 16 or 17yo? The way the above poster stated that 'rape is rape' and 'consent is consent' yes, the structure he wants put in place DO say that a 6yo, 9yo, 16yo, and 17yo are ALL fair game as long as they say yes, so there IS no difference... again, if the guy above had his way Um, no. Try again. Beginning with where I included 'coerced' in my statement. Thanks for playing, clown. using your own posting "coercedpast participle, past tense of co·erce (Verb) Verb: Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats." You can get someone who is unwilling to do stuff without using force or threats, but by using trick, bribes, and treats. There's a reason the joke stereotypical pedophile van has a hand-written sign on the outside saying "Free Candy" |
|
Quoted: It's redefining rape to mean something that it does not implicitly mean. The law is what it is now, but I do not agree with redefining rape in this fashion. By all means, prosecute the actual activity. It doesn't matter if they can consent or not, if the activity itself is illegal. Trying to define by statute whether someone can or cannot consent is the wrong way to go, IMO.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool name. Hook them up with the law. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. It is the perfect name for it because the name implies exactly what it is. It is rape by statute. Under the statute no one under a certain age is legally able to consent to sex. Non consensual sex is rape so the name fits perfectly. |
|
Quoted:
What bothers me is when 2 minors are having sex for years, then one turns 18 before the other one... NOW it's rape... There's usually a "window" of age separation to prevent that, but it doesn't always work. For example, when I was growing up, age of consent was 16 with a 2 year "window" (i.e. a 14 or 15 year old could have sex, but only with someone two years older than them or less). My wife and I have been dating since high school. When we met, she was 14 and I was 16. Because of the location of our birthdays on the calendar, there was a 4 month period when I was 18 and she was 15. If we had had sex during that time, I could have gone to jail. All hypothetical, but it was still weird to think about. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If your 18+, date 18+ all the time. You wont get in trouble in ANY state. This is pretty easy. It's pretty easy when girls are always honest about their age and don't have fake IDs. I do agree that there should be some serious consideration taken when a false ID is presented. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. Technically there is a federal law. 16 years of age is the minimum, however, in these kind of sex cases state law trumps federal law so states can still prosecute based on state law. Besides gun laws, there are very few types of crimes that vary so greatly from state to state. That isn't really an example of state law trumping fed. The feds say you must be 16, but don't guaranteee that you can have sex with a 16 year old just that you can't go under that. The state sets the bar higher so you must comply with both. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool name. Hook them up with the law. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. It is the perfect name for it because the name implies exactly what it is. It is rape by statute. Under the statute no one under a certain age is legally able to consent to sex. Non consensual sex is rape so the name fits perfectly. By that definition 16 year old HS kid doing another 16 year old HS kid is rape. Actually, technically, both parties raped each other so both need to face penalties right? |
|
Quoted:
The department denied Covarrubias a police funeral, said his father, who then opted not to bury his son in the uniform he loved.
"What happened to the brotherhood?" the father asked. What happened to the brotherhood?!?! 
What happened to a Father telling his Adult Son "Don't stick your Dick in the teenaged Explorer"????? Asshole.....The Fucktard son had already told the girl ON A TAPED LINE that he "Wasnt going to be Arrested' Sorry but like I already said...you STOP being my "Brother" when you pork underage girls. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool name. Hook them up with the law. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. It is the perfect name for it because the name implies exactly what it is. It is rape by statute. Under the statute no one under a certain age is legally able to consent to sex. Non consensual sex is rape so the name fits perfectly. By that definition 16 year old HS kid doing another 16 year old HS kid is rape. Actually, technically, both parties raped each other so both need to face penalties right? I bet there isn't too many states that would criminalize that. Many have a leeway for close ages or require one to be older. If they aren't age of consent 16 to begin with. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If your 18+, date 18+ all the time. You wont get in trouble in ANY state. This is pretty easy. It's pretty easy when girls are always honest about their age and don't have fake IDs. I do agree that there should be some serious consideration taken when a false ID is presented. Are guys really checking IDs? But yes, if a guy picks up a girl in a bar, even an 18+ bar, that should bar (no pun intended) liability for the guy. Unless the state negates consent due to intoxication, which I think is bullshit because people voluntarily intoxicate themselves, unless someone got rufied other was otherwise given an intoxicant involuntarily or that was misrepresented as to its contents... Obviously there are complex fact patterns out there but I think we're smart enough to apply more flexible tests to defining "consent" in view of all circumstances. These might already be in effect in some places, I'm not at all familiar with the state of sex crime law. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. A minor is unable to give consent, no matter what they say. As are some mentally disable persons of any age. Non-consensual sex is called rape. Should we not use the term rape to describe sex with an unconscious person? Why? Let's say a 17 year old guy and a 16 year old girl have consensual sex. Did they not both, being minors, give their consent to the other to engage in intercourse? Yes they did. They are able to give consent. Why should it matter if the guy was older than 18? For the law to say that they are unable to consent to things is folly. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. So if a pedo gets a 5 yo to say yes he's gtg? The whole point is minors are not mature enough to give consent. I agree with OP, there should be consistency Is there a difference between a 6yo or 9yo and a 16 or 17yo? Nope, none whatsoever.  (stupid question gets stupid answer)
Here in PA there is, but our statutory rape laws make sense. 16 is age of consent, and there's the "hot freshman" exception (15 is legal for 18/19). The post I was replying to was acting as if there was no difference. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we just get rid of the stupidity that is 'Statutory Rape?' Rape is rape. Either the minor was drugged, coerced, or forced, or they weren't. We don't need to assign the term 'rape' just because we don't like the ages involved. Should it be illegal? That's an issue for the States. We don't need a blanket Federal law, sorry. But calling it 'rape' is hardly appropriate in every case. They call it rape because a minor can't may not be able to (depending on circumstances) give consent to have sex. Sex with no consent is rape. I agree that a federal law on it is retarded. 'They call it rape' The minor either consented, or they did not. If an adult does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. It a minor does not consent to sex, what is it? It's rape. If an adult consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's sex. If a minor consents to sex with an adult, what is it? It's 'rape.' See my problem? I'm not talking about the laws themselves, or their purpose in defining the activity as a sexual offense. I do not like the concept of the term 'Statutory Rape,' itself. Rape is rape. If it's rape, you don't need a qualifier. Calling it rape when it's not is sensationalism. Call it something else. Sex with a minor? Cool. Statutory Rape? Sensationalism. A minor is unable to give consent, no matter what they say. As are some mentally disable persons of any age. Non-consensual sex is called rape. Should we not use the term rape to describe sex with an unconscious person? Why? Let's say a 17 year old guy and a 16 year old girl have consensual sex. Did they not both, being minors, give their consent to the other to engage in intercourse? Yes they did. They are able to give consent. Why should it matter if the guy was older than 18? For the law to say that they are unable to consent to things is folly. Yes, I didn't overburden my post with detail. As I said above, if a party is under 18, then an age difference should apply. And as another poster pointed out, minors can give consent for some things. This isn't a black and white issue. As for why a 16 year old boy can fuck a 16 year old girl, but it is somehow illegal and immoral for a 40 year old man to fuck a 16 year old girl, well, sucks to get old I guess
|