Why Are So Few Statutory Rapes Prosecuted?

They're having a discussion about the nature of statutory rape law --the subject you brought up. If you don't want that discussion, I suggest you take the advice given to you in the TNZ thread that you "misunderstood" before you started this thread and take your show on the road. If you want the discussion to remain, don't start misrepresenting what people are saying to depict them as being in favor of rape, because that'll earn you a trolling warning real fast. Clear?

 

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU3IM5pWTcc[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNRNCk3YwqE[/yt]

 

It's ironic to see anyone advocating the use of your position of authority and someone's financial dependence on you to control their personal choices regarding sex in a statutory rape thread.

 

The fact that you view sex as being immediately comparable to contractual obligations says a lot about your mindset on the topic and experiences with it.

 

where is that from?

 

A British comedy show, "The IT Crowd". I posted it in the threadbomb thread ages ago.

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

It seems to me that people are indicating in their arguments that "statutory rape is not REAL rape".

Is that the correct or not?

 

^ There is a debate, yes. To wit:

- Actual rape, as most understand the term, is the committing of brutal sexual assault through force of violence. No one here is defending that, of course.

- Statutory rape, OTOH, is called that simply because of an age difference. Meaning, a relationship that may otherwise be completely consensual, and involves no coercion or assault or violence of any kind, magically becomes "rape" simply because one party may be a few years too old. That is what people are arguing about.

 

As far as trolls go, accusing people of being in favor of rape when they obviously aren't is pretty lazy.

You're going to have to try harder, parody account.

 

It is "rape" because the law (and common sense) recognizes that there is a grossly unequal level of both overt and implied power in (mainly) girls of middle teen years and adult males in their twenties (often).

It recognizes that young girls (mainly) cannot legally consent to sexual relations with a far older male because coercion does not necessarily involve violence or the threat of violence.

 

Statutory rape is not the same as rape, that's why there are two different words. But really existing statutory rape, i.e. not a situation in which a 16 and 20 year old person have consensual sex but one in which the older person exploits the immaturity of the younger one can very well become the psychological equivalent of rape, hence the necessity to have a rule that forbids intercourse between adults and minors, that enable the victims to go to court.
You don't seem to understand this crucial difference between consensual sex and psychological exploitation and abuse and that these rules exist to cover the latter and not the former case. Furthermore you clearly have no idea about how teenagers actually behave and what forbidding them to do something can cause. You could call it the Spring break effect, forbid drugs and sex and at the first chance young people will do it excessively.

 

Isn't that what I just said?

 

He does, he's playing us. Don't feed the troll.

 

No, they're indicating that sometimes it's a complex issue involving age of consent laws that not only often differ from country to country but state to state, involving different application of the law based on the separation of age between the two parties (an 18 year old and a 17 year old vs. a 28 year old and a 17 year old, for example), and involving different cultural value systems that can't always be neatly categorized into your knee-jerk, thoughtless, black and white, yes or no world.

Where the misrepresentation comes in is that since people are discussing the nature of the laws you're assuming that they're advocating rape when they are simply discussing their opinions on the law. If someone discusses reducing the sentencing for crack cocaine versus other drugs because that sentencing unjustly targets minorities in greater percentages, that doesn't mean they're saying "hey, let's all go use some crack."

Let me give you an example of misrepresenting someone's point:

So, what you're saying is, that since you live under a roof your in-laws gave you and essentially get paid an allowance because you work at your family's business, that means they can tell you when you can have sex, right?

See, I could have determined from the subject matter that we're talking about sexual activity amongst minors living at home and not adults, but instead I just decided to get rid of all that boring context stuff and go right for the jugular, much like you did when you started accusing people of being pro-rape.

We clear now?

 

I still dated my high school girlfriend when I was 18 and she was 16. Someone please come and arrest me now.

 

A young actress named Mary Cathleen Collins, later to be known as Bo Derek, began having a sexual relationship with actor/director John Derek when she was sixteen. He was thirty years her senior. The couple lived in Germany for two years because of the possibility of statutory rape prosecution under U.S. law. They married when Bo turned 18 and stayed married until John's death.

Young people mature at vastly different rates and situations like these should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Okay, I may have misrepresented the facts a bit. I called Bo Derek an actress.

Oh, and shouldn't this thread and the one on the same topic in TNZ be consolidated?

 

Oh, good, when I said no one was defending statutory rape I was worried that creepy old men having sex with teenagers thanks to different laws and crazy parents might go underrepresented, so thanks for that, Doug Hutchison.