Boy and girl, both 16, have consensual sex--only the boy faces statutory rape charges

[–]9279 178 points179 points180 points 10 years ago (110 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSOMT 142 points143 points144 points 10 years ago (101 children) | Copy Link

[–]9279 57 points58 points59 points 10 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–]equiposeur 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -100 points-99 points-98 points 10 years ago (93 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 81 points82 points83 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -68 points-67 points-66 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 35 points36 points37 points 10 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alarid 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The spirit and the letter of the law are to stop someone who is considered 'not physically or emotionally ready for the potential harm caused by sex' from being haved sex with. In other words: Its there to stop teen girls from having sex with adult men because it could emotionally hurt them.

The fact that a male is also underage doesn't stop the underage female from the possible emotional hurt of having sex too soon, which is why these laws exist. To stop her from having sex too soon, when she;s not ready for it. Therefore, it makes sense to punish even an underage male for breaking the law by having sex with someone who can't consent, as the whole notion of age of consent laws boil down to:

-To prevent a young girl from having sex when she's not emotionally or psychologically capable of consenting, and when there is a possibility of coercion, all of which can be traumatic and damaging to her.

That is the point of AoC laws. A teen male can coerce, a teen male can manipulate. Just because someone is 16 instead of 26, how does that change the possibility that the teen female is going to be emotionally hurt from sex that she's not ready for? It doesn't.

I can show you women and men who have actual college degrees, who study this kind of thing, basically saying that when you control for age, actual psychological harm done is consistent. Age simply falls out of the equation as being relevant. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the male is 16 or 26, they can do the same amount of harm. As the AoC is meant to STOP this harm, it makes sense to apply it to either overage or underage males, since they can both harm an underage female emotionally.

if you've done any studying of feminism and age of consent law, it was primarily designed to stop adult males from procuring prostitution from teenage girls. Both adult males and the teen girls were considered "fallen" because sex outside marriage is immoral, and so is prostitution. The people who advocated AoC also thought gays were evil, that sex outside marriage was evil, etc. Feminists back in those days were very religiously inclined, and using that religious base as the foundation of their arguments.

These days, we've substituted religious arguments for "psychological readiness", which, you should agree, is consistent no matter the other actor's age.

If a 16 year old girl is under the age of consent, and deemed not ready for sex, then it doesn't and shouldn't matter who has sex with her. They're violating her in the spirit and letter of the law, whether the violater is 12 or 40.

is it unfair? Sure. Lets make it equal for both genders, but now the initiator of sexual contact is the violater. If an overage person starts talking sexually to an underage teen, they're initiating, and therefore they're in legal trouble if caught. If an underage teen does it to someone overage, the overage has the responsibility to cut communication. You see that the street runs one way: from the initiator who is doing something illegal, to the supposed victim. Therefore it makes sense to slap jailtime on the inititator of sex when two underage people are doing it, as one is violating the other, similar to how an underage person can be sent to jail for sodomizing a 10 year old. The initiator is the one at fault.

If he as a male really didnt inititate and she did, then yes, she should get jailtime isntead.

This is all if you believe that the law is about protecting people who can't consent to sex because of emotional immaturity.

If you want to reframe it as "adults can't have sex with emotionally unready juveniles, but other juveniles can", then you're saying that you are fine with the resulting emotional damage that may occur from the act if committed by other underage people. If you think that's perfectly acceptable, then your moral value isn't actually about protecting underage teens from damaging sex acts, its about punishing adults from sex acts with teens (and if this is so, you don't care about the harm done by the sex acts, you just want adults punished for it).

That is the gist of your reasoning.

[–]Alarid 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -46 points-45 points-44 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]paper_liger 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]novice_at_life -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]blaqsaqattaq 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eiliant 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]9279 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Genghis_Frog 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]9279 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]9279 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Because "moral reasons".

If you look over any of the recent posts of mine, I drew the distinction that, prior to today, the feminists of bygone eras wanted it raised from 10 to 12, then to 16 and finally all the way up to 18, everywhere. Yes, feminists wanted it 18 everywhere.

They did this for the following reasons:

It defiles a maiden

It impurifies a girl

it is moral and ethical corruption/decay

it is damaging to her and society (and this damage is more about her sexual marketplace value in marriage if she's already had her virginity taken by a guy lying that he'd marry her).

Since we have had sexual revolutions, these "reasons", founded on religious zealotry and perhaps more subtle and insidious motives as "controlling male sexual desire", as one old, old paper put it (and the feminists themselves even admit to wanting to control male sexuality, as well as female sexuality, although in context they believe women are degraded and have no agency, while men are sexual actors and degradING), all these reasons fall by the wayside.

In order not to have the laws stripped off, a new moral panic arises. The threat of the sex predator, and the child molestor. By changing focus, we get to keep these laws in place, which actually limit the sexual marketplace and keep older womens' value up. "Stick with us or be damned to a hellish nightmare for having sex with a willing teen participant". Maybe that's a supposition too far, but it certainly is the effect of the laws; if you have sex with teens who've already had sex and know their way around it, and want it with you, as a legal adult, you are going to get fucked once by them and then secondly by society and law.

They believe it makes sense in the context of replacing all those flowery words like "purity" with "emotional capability" and "psychological readiness". Brain scans showing the changes in the brain don't slow down after teen years have been repeatedly used to reaffirm our religious belief in the age of consent. They show a person at 25 still has major brain changes. If a 25 year old is still changing, then surely a 16 year old is way too immature to consent.

Except then we have proof now that the brain still doesn't stop changing as much until 30's or 40's. I wager that in people with very healthy diets, such as Mediterranean diets, etc (This diet stuff is actually in a scientific american mind mag), may find people not finished with their brain changes into their 50's or later, since good diets stave off the loss of neurons and dementia/Alzheimers, etc.

Age of consent laws being raised were actually a byproduct of teens whoring themselves to support their families, and the rampant use of said whores by adult men. Remember, in these days sex outside marriage was a disgusting atrocity, and prostitution was especially taboo. Just like "regular" prostitution, however, it doesn't stop nature and desire, nor does it actually protect those who practice it. It pushes them further into dark alleys with more and more dangerous individuals who WILL victimize them in awful ways, rather than them safely plying their trade in very public, well to do neighborhoods. But I digest.

Lately proponents of the law to stay where it is have used either highly emotive reasoning (because its wrong/ could be manipulative/disgusting), or pseudo-scientific reasoning, once again referencing those brain scans.

However, those brain scans imo were never meant to show that people are still immature at 25. All they really show is brain changes. Not brain "completion" or "brain maturation". After all, a brain that continues to change is adaptive, is reflexive, and can learn and enhance itself. Those enhancements and changes stop when sensory input stops. A brain of an infant tied in a basement for 40 years will have serious and permanently retarded development, even if they are, in all other respects, genetically normal. To show off these brain scans as proof that people are still immature at 25, and thus 16 year olds can't possibly make decisions as their brain isn't developed enough, by association of 25 year old brain scans, is basically trying to pull the thumb/nose pull trick on a child. It fools anyone who is half watching and doesn't know any better, but its a slight of hand trick. The brain is actually almost fully formed by the time of the toddler years. SOmething like 85-90% is "done" during those times.

In all other times, rapid changes in the brain are not signs of maturity. A mature tree develops a very consistent and stable structure. It changes very little after that time. You don't actually want a "mature" brain, because mature in this context, as used by the brain scan proponents for AoC, means the brain stops developing and "fixing" itself at a rapid rate, learning ability declines, etc. A mature brain is, in fact very bad.

This also is something completely different to emotional or psychological maturity. A person can be extremely psychologically mature, yet their brain is still "immature" since it can keep changing, because there's plenty of 17 year olds that are mature for their age. Ben Shapiro was one. He got a newspaper column at 17, graduated from Harvard, and took his professors to the mat in his 20's. He wrote praiseworthy books. Scott Devine is another. He went on the road to develops his bass playing skills in his teens, and never looked back. He's insanely good, and he had to deal with real life as a teen. We even have the "minor empancipation laws" on the books for the fact that we sometimes deem teens capable of becoming adults before 18. The guy with the big jaw, Tony Robbins, same shtick. As a teen, he worked hard and lived an adult life. He made something of himself.

Anyway, that's a long winded way of saying that people who are for the age of consent are usually full of shit.

If someone is legally incapable of consent, then it doesn't matter who the other actor in the situation is, they're a victim. If you recognize that "sometimes" they can consent, then they must be capable of saying "I want to be fucked by person X", where person X could be 16 or 60. Anyone imposing the idea that a 16 year old can't naturally find someone older attractive enough for sex is blatantly ignoring teen males, and creating a false dilemma fallacy which ignores individuality. This is why teen males are taken less seriously in court, incidentally. At some level we know it. However the shit hits the fan when a teen female does the same (e.g. is "victimized). Even if she's sexually attracted to someone older and willingly fucks them, a horrible crime has been committed.

You will notice that the puritan/religious values haven't gone away when, if its a woman who fucks a teen female, then she gets far less jailtime than a man. The presumption is still that women sexuality is elevated, and men sexuality is base and degrading. That women are manipulated, and men are manipulator.

The paradigm which age of consent laws are based on is completely flawed from the start.

If the laws had only been around stopping teen prostitution so they don't get sucked into bad lives, it would have had greater merit, but then the law could've been more focused on specifically teen prostitution, over and beyond the normal anti-pros laws.

The answer keeps coming back to the double think of considering it healthy and normal, and yet also still considering it harmful to men and women, and that it is a sin of humanity that needs to be controlled, and legally if they won't listen to religious reason. As much as Shapiro says a lot of likeable things, he holds to the values of Judaism which actually explicitly sets out these terms for sexuality; its healthy/normal, but only in marriage, otherwise its bad, bad, bad.

[–]IllusiveSwaggerFox 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]link5057 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]link5057 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ratchetthunderstud 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]kursdragon 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The point is showing that we fully believe a 15 or 16 year old can't consent to sex and is a victim when a 20 year old initiates sex with them, so then why does the 16 year old initiating sex with them get a free pass?

After all, these girls are getting revenge on him for the very reason we ostensibly have AoC laws: because they felt manipulated into sex and abused by him.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the victim feels or has to go through emotionally. That is the reason for AoC laws when faced with a 15 vs 20 year old, or a 15 vs 40 year old. The pain of the victim for having been manipulated and abused.

What you're saying is that becoming a victim is not a legal problem if the perpetrator happens to also be under the age of consent. In other words, you accept people being sexually abused.

Take two identical cases of an underage girl and an underage guy or an underage girl and overage guy. The two cases are identical. Both guys say "if you really love me, you'd have sex with me". Both get sex. Only the overage guy is on the hook, in your mind, for manipulation and abuse, the foundation of AoC law today. Despite the fact that the negative repercussions are the same for both girls.

[–]kursdragon 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My point is neither of the underage people should be punished, just like if 2 drunk people have sex, neither should be punished as neither gave consent. You cannot tell me you fully believe we should be punishing 16 year olds for having sex? How is that even crossing your mind? Are you jealous of others that were having fun at that age while you were alone or something? That's honestly the only reason I could see you thinking like this. Sex is a healthy part of people's lives, stop trying to make it frowned upon guy, you're acting like either of them harmed the other, when in reality that's not the case, it was consensual for both of them. In the case of overage and underage people then it can get tricky as then there is usually a power advantage between the 2 as one is usually more mature, but that is also tricky as people mature in different times, so you could say that a 16 year old and an 18 year old should be fine together but some might say they aren't. But there is no way you can try to tell me that 16 year olds shouldn't be able to live a healthy lifestyle while also incorporating sex into that, you honestly have to be fucking crazy to think otherwise.

[–]Jazzeki 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dgillz 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cosmic_Pumpkin 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cosmic_Pumpkin 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cosmic_Pumpkin 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Genghis_Frog 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Genghis_Frog 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoDonki 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Boozeman78 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaptorFalcon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jeester 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You may not retreat to "well, that's what the law says" because, if you do, you will be forced to admit you agree with all kinds of atrocities committed by nations with unjust laws, past and present.

That's a fallacy. The law says they should be treated differently and they are being treated differently. That means the law is being used as intended.

Are you really unaware that I'm talking about applying laws equally for males and for females?

If you are, then that's an issue to bring up with changing the laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/womens-long-battle-to-define-rape/2012/08/24/aa960280-ed34-11e1a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

The earliest challenges emerged in the 1840s, just as the women’s rights movement was coalescing. Reformers tried to make it easier to prosecute white men who had been neither strangers nor violent. They sought criminal penalties to discourage what they called “the licentious man” from coercing, persuading or pressuring a young woman to have sex, especially through a false promise of marriage. By 1900, their lobbying campaigns had succeeded in most states, making seduction by an acquaintance, regardless of consent or force, a lesser crime than rape but still punishable by fines and imprisonment. A subsequent national campaign, endorsed by temperance and suffrage advocates, called for increasing the age at which a young woman could legally consent to sex beyond the common-law standard of 10. At a time when women could not vote, they gathered tens of thousands of signatures on petitions and lobbied male officials. By 1900, they had convinced legislators in 32 states — primarily in the North and the Midwest — to increase the age of consent to between 14 and 18. These statutory rape laws did not require evidence of force or resistance for a conviction, but the penalties were less severe. http://historyoffeminism.com/british-feminists-role-in-the-reform-of-age-of-consent-laws-in-colonial-india/

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/1895/10/15/Purity_Congress_Meets

Determined to Prevent State Regulation of Vice and to Rescue Fallen Men and Fallen Women. The American Purity Alliance in its present form was incorporated under the laws of New-York State a few months ago for the purpose of fighting a bill to regulate vice, which was before the Albany Legislature. Being successful therein, the membership was increased, and now includes persons actively interested in purity questions in many States. He declared, further, that this society had urgent need to pronounce itself on the subject of the so-called age of consent laws. Girls are deemed capable of controlling property only at their majority, but States decide not so with their persons. In four States the age of consent is fixed at the shockingly low age of ten years, in four others at twelve, in three at thirteen, and so on, increasing, except in Delaware, where the original statute pertaining to the crime of rape is still unrepealed, fixing the age at seven years. These so-called age of consent statutes, which discriminate against girlhood and favor immoral men, are a disgrace to the several States of the Union. Another work which this congress, it is hoped, will do much to aid, is the greatly needed rescue work among the victims of vice; rescue work among fallen men, as well as fallen women. But even more important is preventive educational purity work among the young, which shall ultimately make rescue work no longer a necessity.”

They seemed capable of building and changing the laws on age of consent, as a grassroots movement. Why do you say "they should" in a reddit sub instead of going out there and changing the law?

As it stands, the law is that the male is in trouble for it and not the female. If you say it should apply equally, what is your reasoning? Just because?

[–]DaVincitheReptile 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ratchetthunderstud 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Plain_Bread 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FeartheReign87 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dgillz 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FaustyArchaeus 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]9279 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DigitalDolt 120 points121 points122 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vance87 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endless_Summer 71 points72 points73 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Vance87 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hashtagwindbag 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alarid 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LilyBentley 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]speakingofsegues 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]speakingofsegues 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KexyKnave 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aaod 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefury500 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sunthas 76 points77 points78 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeardedDragonFire 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kursdragon 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]phonixinuinit 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]110Liam 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamDeath123 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]umar4812 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell your wife a couple things.

First, its not considered rape, or it would be tried under the already existing rape laws, and age of consent laws wouldn't need to exist. feminist araised the age of consent to protect the purity of girls, to punish males of any age who had sex with them, but mostly because teens were being prostitutes and so many, many adult men were using them for sex because adult men find them attractive.

A person having sex with someone underage gets 5 years or so. A person who commits rape against any person gets 20 years. It is NOT rape. It is "rape by statute" because "they magically can't consent" even if they are "willing".

Second, your wife would probably still say that a 15 year old fucking a 30 year old willingly is rape, despite the fact that a 15 year with a 15 year wouldnt be, even though in both cases, the 15 year old can't legally consent, although they are willing participants.

If you can't legally consent, you're a victim of a crime. It doesn't matter how willing you are. We are perfectly willing to harm a "legal adult" with this law when a 15 year old wants to screw that adult, whether they're 20 or 60, but want to play nice when a 15 year old commits the same crime vs another 15 year old, despite the fact that at 15 you should know right from wrong, and despite the fact that the age of criminal responsibility is 12.

Criminal responsibility means that you are liable to the state for committing criminal acts, which fucking someone under the age of consent is.

If you're saying "its possible that a teen can consent to willing sex with a 15 year old", you have to also admit its possible for them to do so with a "legal adult", because there is absolutely NO WAY that the place responsible for "being capable of consenting" magically switches on or off based on the age of the other participant, which is the argument made by people who believe that teens can consent to each other but not to someone over 18.

[–]Tkershaw8 53 points54 points55 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]aChileanDude 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Machnow 37 points38 points39 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePedanticCynic 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pegguins 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MrBigMcLargeHuge 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diesel-66 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peculiar_One 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Diesel-66 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quintrell 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi_win 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_posh_trophy 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FeartheReign87 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EgoandDesire 29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_posh_trophy 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FeartheReign87 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MartinMan2213 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dudeman_chino 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HardKase 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anonymous_212 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HAWAll 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]billyc74 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]H-4350 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stfaulk90 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pegguins 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Proteus_Marius 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luke759123 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darth_Sin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]trashcan86 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]trashcan86 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypertroph 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypertroph 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dnavich -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And so why not a 16 year old and a 26 year old? If you want it to be equal for males, such that a 16 year old does not go to jail, what about a 26 year old?

Both of them would violate the age of consent having sex with a 16 year old in a place that is 17. What do you think changes?

Do you really think the law is "a person who is legally an adult can't have sex with a teen just cause 'reasons'"?

Or do you subscribe to the notion that it is in place for a more serious reason, such as laid out in the very terms of age of consetn laws? The AoC laws state thus: that a person under that age cannot legally consent, as they lack mental and physical maturity to undertake the venture.

Therefore, it does not matter what age the other actor is. What, are you going to tell us that the part of her brain that "is mentally and emotionally incapable by legal ruling" suddenly switches on because the dick in her is similarly aged to herself?

Exactly what kind of magical thinking are you substituting for reason to explain why you think age of consent laws are fine, but only if they aren't applied to males who violate it and happen to be under the age of consent?

What anyone is essentially saying is that if you happen to fall under that bright red line, potential victims of sexual assault (as yes, that is what it is to fuck someone under the age of consent, legally speaking), no longer have protection from you.

[–]Jamesgardiner 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Poueff 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Poueff 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jamesgardiner 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HAWAll 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -85 points-84 points-83 points 10 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

If they're both under the age of consent, and he was the actor asking her for sex, then he should go to jail for violating age of consent laws. If she asked him for sex, and coaxed him into it, she should go to jail.

Its really simple. The person who instigates the crime should go to jail. The person asking consent to sex from a person who legally cannot consent to sex is the one committing the crime, whether he or she.

Yes, a crime was being committed here, as if they are under the age of consent, they are deemed incapable of consenting to sex, ergo, they are victims in the eyes of the law.

Its the same as if a 20-30-40 year old asked one of them for sex and they 'willingly agreed'. Their 'consent' is still invalid because of the law. The law is there because we don't trust them to make healthy sexual decisions, and we don't want them emotionally scarred by it.

A law is a law. If you don't like it, change the laws.

[–]TheSOMT 47 points48 points49 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EgoandDesire 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Apellosine 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[+]mwobuddy -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plain_Bread 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypertroph 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Apellosine 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Legally, no.

The law is about the perp/victim paradigm. The perp is the one initiating, the victim is the one either allowing, through intoxication or young age, it to take place, or being forced to take part in it.

The latter is untrue, so the former must be. The law does have logic to it.

If two 14 year olds had sex, my question as DA would be to find out who initiated it, who brought up the idea of sex and goaded the other into it. That would by my "perp".

if two kids are playing, and one turns to the other and says "lets steal this", they are the ringleader of the crime. Since this isn't theft from a third party, but theft from a second party/victim, e.g. the askee, not the asker, and the theft is of "childhood innocence and purity", as codified by laws (since all the laws state that a child is having their innocence removed if fucks them and they are under the age of consent, as they are exposed to lewd, lascivious behavior), then it doesn't matter that the initiator, the asker, is also having their "innocence" taken. They're choosing to commit a crime.

It does make sense.

[–]Apellosine 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The comparison of theft to statutory rape is a very poor one as theft is always illegal regardless of who is participating.

Sex with someone under the age of consent is always illegal, regardless of who is participating.

Can both parties not be equally enthusiastic about the sex act about to take place as is the case amongst teenagers. The problem with this situation is that the agency of the female is being taken away that she cannot consent/wish to take part in the ensuing act.

The same assumption is held true of teen+adult sex. "They didn't really want it, they were manipulated into it, or they're being tricked and don't know better, they can't actually handle sex, after all".

So the next time you see a 20-30 year old banging away at some 15-16 year old who's screaming "yes fuck me!", maybe you'll think back on this conversation rather than reaching for 101 or 999 or 911 or whatever.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

they're still fucking someone "who doesn't understand what they're doing or have the emotional readiness"

As is the girl, she is also 'fucking' someone 'who doesn't understand what they're doing or have the emotional readiness"

Only difference is this Irish? law that we're discusses specifically protects women in this situation even though it shouldn't.

I myself at that age was manipulated into sex with a girl the same age. I've regretted what happened for many years and feel like I was taken advantage of even though I consented and it was mutual and legal. But in Ireland, I would have been a rapist.

Laws can be wrong, and in this case it is. Still you have not once here made any logical argument, you shift the goal posts between what is right/wrong according to morals or law but you haven't really stayed consistent in that.

I think the basis of what you're saying is that this young 16 year old deserves to be treated like a rapist and charged/sentenced accordingly. If so why? Are you arguing this solely because he broke the law or because you believe he was committing a moral wrong?

If in the case of law, why you do think this law is justified?

In the case of morals, what basis do you have to believe the male behaved immorally.

And try to avoid circular reasoning. You're treating this issue as though:

A 16 Year Old Male having Sex with a 16 Year old Female is wrong because the law says so
The law exists because this behaviour is considered wrong
But this behaviour is only wrong because the law says so

Demonstrate to my why the law is justified or why this behaviour is inherently immoral. Imagine a lawless world, if this happened would you be calling this guy a rapist?

Do you think its fair that if two 14 year olds date for 2 years and have sex when both 16 the male becomes a rapist?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

An action being illegal doesn't make it wrong though.

Look at middle eastern countries that execute you simply for having different beliefs. The point being that laws exist to control society, not necessarily always to mirror morality, often yes, but not always and this is one such example.

This law exists to control society and limit individuals unfairly influencing younger people into sexual acts, at the same time it ruins the lives of people who did nothing wrong, and it could be argued that consent laws are archaic and not reflecting the fact that many people as early as age 12 now wish to become sexually active, and whilst the law may have good intentions, the fact of the matter is that those people are gonna do it anyway and instead of forming policy around the reality of the situation instead the law is penalising many innocent people unfairly.

So, I fail to see why this guy deserves this.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ulpisen 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ulpisen 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VicisSubsisto 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]locks_are_paranoid 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaVincitheReptile 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or you could be autistic. That's always a good way to make an argument.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/womens-long-battle-to-define-rape/2012/08/24/aa960280-ed34-11e1a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

The earliest challenges emerged in the 1840s, just as the women’s rights movement was coalescing. Reformers tried to make it easier to prosecute white men who had been neither strangers nor violent. They sought criminal penalties to discourage what they called “the licentious man” from coercing, persuading or pressuring a young woman to have sex, especially through a false promise of marriage. By 1900, their lobbying campaigns had succeeded in most states, making seduction by an acquaintance, regardless of consent or force, a lesser crime than rape but still punishable by fines and imprisonment.

A subsequent national campaign, endorsed by temperance and suffrage advocates, called for increasing the age at which a young woman could legally consent to sex beyond the common-law standard of 10. At a time when women could not vote, they gathered tens of thousands of signatures on petitions and lobbied male officials. By 1900, they had convinced legislators in 32 states — primarily in the North and the Midwest — to increase the age of consent to between 14 and 18. These statutory rape laws did not require evidence of force or resistance for a conviction, but the penalties were less severe.

http://historyoffeminism.com/british-feminists-role-in-the-reform-of-age-of-consent-laws-in-colonial-india/

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/1895/10/15/Purity_Congress_Meets

Determined to Prevent State Regulation of Vice and to Rescue Fallen Men and Fallen Women.

The American Purity Alliance in its present form was incorporated under the laws of New-York State a few months ago for the purpose of fighting a bill to regulate vice, which was before the Albany Legislature. Being successful therein, the membership was increased, and now includes persons actively interested in purity questions in many States.

He declared, further, that this society had urgent need to pronounce itself on the subject of the so-called age of consent laws. Girls are deemed capable of controlling property only at their majority, but States decide not so with their persons. In four States the age of consent is fixed at the shockingly low age of ten years, in four others at twelve, in three at thirteen, and so on, increasing, except in Delaware, where the original statute pertaining to the crime of rape is still unrepealed, fixing the age at seven years. These so-called age of consent statutes, which discriminate against girlhood and favor immoral men, are a disgrace to the several States of the Union.

Another work which this congress, it is hoped, will do much to aid, is the greatly needed rescue work among the victims of vice; rescue work among fallen men, as well as fallen women. But even more important is preventive educational purity work among the young, which shall ultimately make rescue work no longer a necessity.”

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

n the late nineteenth century,"Age of consent" referred to the legal age at which a girl could consent to sexual relations. Men who engaged in sexual relations with girls who had not reached the age of consent could be criminally prosecuted. American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was eventually quite successful; by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteeen.

There you go. A crash course in the history of AoC. It was started as a purity thing, because sex is detrimental to mind, body, and soul. Not only that, the people who pushed for it weren't just in office, or in courtrooms, they were regular citizens forming large, loud mouthed groups.

Waxing melodramatic about quitting your job to invest 25 years into a career just to change one law is an effort in lunatic hyperbole.

You could instead be at the forefront of a regular citizen group urging change. Put your face out there with your words and stand by it.

[–]DaVincitheReptile 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ducksfornipples2 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKnightAlone 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boy and girl, both 16, have consensual sex--only the boy faces statutory rape charges

Comments

NO MATTER WHAT

Title	Boy and girl, both 16, have consensual sex--only the boy faces statutory rape charges
Author	PierceHarlan
Upvotes	2498
Comments	243
Date	March 17, 2016 6:29 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4aufuc/boy_and_girl_both_16_have_consensual_sexonly_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/boy-and-girl-both-16-have-consensual-sex-only-the.953817 https://theredarchive.com/post/953817