NationStates Jolt Archive

Now you may think that this is a silly question, but hang in there with me. I am asking this question because recently the judge in the following case had the book thrown at him by one of the United Kingdom's Law Lords. The Law Lord argued that the judge was too soft on the accused in the following case:

An 18 year old male was charged for having sex with a 12 year old. Prior to this case, having sex with anyone under the age of 13 was changed to being rape under British law. However the judge in this case sent the male down for 'Unlawful Sex with a Minor' (16 is the age of consent remember) and not rape as it was very clear that the 12 year old orchestrated the sex i.e. She met him on the internet, invited him to stay at her house, she snuck into his bedroom later that evening and had sex with him. The Judge I feel got it right, as Rape is very different to unlawful sex. Rape is about power, terror and control. This 18 year old was in the wrong and was convicted accordingly, but to have sent him down for rape would have been very harsh. However the law does state that this judge called it wrong. Is the law however an ass? Does it come down to the individual cases when deciding what is rape and what isn't?

In my view it's this girls parents who deserve having the book thrown at them almost as much as this 18 year old for allowing an 18 year old who your daughter met on the internet to stay at your house. Morethan that, this girl's parents should never have given her a computer with internet access in the first place.

Do you however think that the judge was right? What constitutes rape?

In the US this is called statutory rape. The legal principle is that sex with someone below the age of consent is always rape because even if the person has orchestrated the situation, they are too young to give consent.

In short, someone below the age of consent is legally incapable of consenting, therefore any sex with them is rape.

I believe that the legal philosopy is that a 12 year old can't give *informed* consent to sex because they don't really know what sex entails. I think this is a good principle.

The 18 year old should still be convicted of rape, but given a small sentence, and the girl and her parents should be given a very stern talking to by the police and social services.

And the age of consent should be dropped, probably to 14, maybe even as far as 12. The rape and sexual abuse laws we already have are probably good enough to cover it, maybe some "abuse of power" or "position of trust" clause should be added for cases where the older sexual partner might gain consent from the younger through their authority over them without using explicit threats.

In the US this is called statutory rape. The legal principle is that sex with someone below the age of consent is always rape because even if the person has orchestrated the situation, they are too young to give consent.

In short, someone below the age of consent is legally incapable of consenting, therefore any sex with them is rape.

I believe that the legal philosopy is that a 12 year old can't give *informed* consent to sex because they don't really know what sex entails. I think this is a good principle.

The 18 year old should still be convicted of rape, but given a small sentence, and the girl and her parents should be given a very stern talking to by the police and social services.

And the age of consent should be dropped, probably to 14, maybe even as far as 12. The rape and sexual abuse laws we already have are probably good enough to cover it, maybe some "abuse of power" or "position of trust" clause should be added for cases where the older sexual partner might gain consent from the younger through their authority over them without using explicit threats.

Interesting. Often when a teacher or youth group worker has had sex with one their students/ youngsters (not usually 12 but more like 14 or 15), even if the younger partner seduced them or orchestrated sex, the teacher is rightly told off for "abusing a position of trust etc".

My main problem with him being done for rape, is that there is in this country and I am sure in your country, a quite high and lengthy custodial sentence for those who commit rape (as there should be). To me this lad has not raped someone, and so doesnt deserve to serve that long sentence but ahs made a serious error of judgement. The guy still got a much shorter custodial sentence and has been registered as a sex offender, but I just think that by dragging the crime committed by this youngster into the same bracket as actual rape, is belittling rape, which is a truly dispicable crime.

He had sex with a minor. Yes. But is he a rapist? I am not sure that he is.

Did he know that the girl was 12 years old?

Did he know that the girl was 12 years old?

Yes he did. The fool.

I am not just talking about this case though. Is there any line between having sex with a person under 13 (as the law states) and rape or not?

If he knew her age, then it was the idiot's own stupid fault and I have no sympathy with him no matter what he gets charged with.

But is it rape?

Not really, if she pushed it on him.

The fact remains that he could have just said no himself though.

If I remember my english legal history, the concept of age of consent was not introduced until some time in the 17th century. Prior to that you could have sex with anyone no matter what age they were and it was perfectly legal.

The first such statute only defined age of consent for girls and set it at ten years old.

So looking at it from a larger perspective, is what he did rape?

Yes, because the law says so, and that's how the law works.

It was rape due to the gross age difference and the fact he basically took advantage of somebody too young to realize the implications of what they were doing.

The parents should be flogged, the girl should be flogged, and the boy should be flogged. Everybody is at fault there, but mostly the parents (what idiot parents let an 18 year old 'sleep over' when they have a young daughter in the house?) and the boy too should get a good flogging (what pervert sleeps with a 12 year old girl?) and the girl too (she's started herself off nicely on the path to becoming a whore)

Now you may think that this is a silly question, but hang in there with me. I am asking this question because recently the judge in the following case had the book thrown at him by one of the United Kingdom's Law Lords. The Law Lord argued that the judge was too soft on the accused in the following case:

An 18 year old male was charged for having sex with a 12 year old. Prior to this case, having sex with anyone under the age of 13 was changed to being rape under British law. However the judge in this case sent the male down for 'Unlawful Sex with a Minor' (16 is the age of consent remember) and not rape as it was very clear that the 12 year old orchestrated the sex i.e. She met him on the internet, invited him to stay at her house, she snuck into his bedroom later that evening and had sex with him. The Judge I feel got it right, as Rape is very different to unlawful sex. Rape is about power, terror and control. This 18 year old was in the wrong and was convicted accordingly, but to have sent him down for rape would have been very harsh. However the law does state that this judge called it wrong. Is the law however an ass? Does it come down to the individual cases when deciding what is rape and what isn't?

In my view it's this girls parents who deserve having the book thrown at them almost as much as this 18 year old for allowing an 18 year old who your daughter met on the internet to stay at your house. Morethan that, this girl's parents should never have given her a computer with internet access in the first place.

Do you however think that the judge was right? What constitutes rape?
SImple, not matter what she did, she is not capabel of making the decsion for her self at that age.
It was up to the eighteen year old to be a man and refuse the girl.
That should be pretty clear.
Unless you are saying that it is ok to take advantage of a minor because they are easily manipulated.
Or you are saying that as long as the female throws herself at a man the man can not be expected to show self control.
Does this boy attempt to have sex with every woman he sees dressed in a provocative manner.
Is so comletely incapable of controling his urges that we should feel sympathy for him sexing a pubesent?
Rape, that is what it is.
Also I might add this guy must be a real loser, I was stinging 25-30year olds when I was 18, he cant play ball in his own league-then throw him out of the game.

Everybody is at fault there, but mostly the parents (what idiot parents let an 18 year old 'sleep over' when they have a young daughter in the house?) )
Damned right!!

yes it is rape and the guy should be put away for as long as the law allows.

now excuse me as i go find a tower to lock my daughter in

I don't believe its rape however the 18 year old does seem to have taken advantage of the situation and if he was aware of her age he was in the wrong and deserved his sentence. I don't think the age of consent can be dropped to 12... kids don't know their own mind at that age!

Maybe some minors think they're ready for sex, but really, it's hard to make the law apply on a case by case basis, and it's there to protect those who aren't ready, and aren't emotionally mature enough to deal with the things that come along with sex.

I think the law is mostly to ensure that mature people don't take advantage of their position of percieved authority over minors, which can be construed as coercion, and very often is. Sex brought about by coercion is rape.

Children, and that's what most people under the age of 18 are, no offense to the under-18's, shouldn't be having sex with people who are supposed to be more responsible. The law places the onus of responsibility on those who are above the age of majority.

I think the +/- 2 years rule starting with a minimum age of 14 works fine.

In my opinion, it was rape.
She was a 12 year old child, he was an 18 year old adult.
It does'nt matter that she went into his room, he should have said no, and told her to get out.
Unless her parents allowed this (which I doubt), then they're not to blame either. I have no doubt they thought their CHILD was safe from an adults sexual advances. I'm sure there is more to the story of why he was in the house, than the public are being told.
As for lowering the age of consent, hell no.
16 is good, 15 maybe, but 14 or even 12, no way. Can you imagine mothers telling their children to remember to take their pill before going off to school. Children and young teens, don't have the knowlege or responsibility to handle decisions that could affect the rest of their lives (pregnancy, STDs etc).

The 18 year old should still be convicted of rape, but given a small sentence, and the girl and her parents should be given a very stern talking to by the police and social services.


I tend to agree with you, the sentence should be the most lenient allowed in this circumstances, but I don't think it should go into his record to be labelled a sex offender and having that follow him for the rest of his life, which is something that happens all too often in the US.

and the girl too (she's started herself off nicely on the path to becoming a whore)

I don't remember reading any part of the story that said she took money for it. Promiscuity is not the same thing as prostitution. Promiscuity means you do it a lot for free. Prostitution means you do it a lot for money. All that is meant to say that you're being a little free with the judgement.

Can you imagine mothers telling their children to remember to take their pill before going off to school.

Actually, I think we'd be better off being open and honest with our kids about sex and the consequences it might have. If abstinence is too much to shoot for, maybe we need to look at damage control, and tell our kids about using condoms and the pill, and STDs. Part of the problem is that parents aren't telling their kids enough about it, because they're embarrassed to talk about sex to their kids, and the kids have to figure it out for themselves, which is a recipe for disaster. It's not about permissiveness, it's about honesty and information.

I don't remember reading any part of the story that said she took money for it. Promiscuity is not the same thing as prostitution. Promiscuity means you do it a lot for free. Prostitution means you do it a lot for money. All that is meant to say that you're being a little free with the judgement.



Actually, I think we'd be better off being open and honest with our kids about sex and the consequences it might have. If abstinence is too much to shoot for, maybe we need to look at damage control, and tell our kids about using condoms and the pill, and STDs. Part of the problem is that parents aren't telling their kids enough about it, because they're embarrassed to talk about sex to their kids, and the kids have to figure it out for themselves, which is a recipe for disaster. It's not about permissiveness, it's about honesty and information.



Tell children that if they have sex outside of marriage they'll burn in hell and they may just have their genitalia fall off from using it before it is meant to be used (The last part applies only to men)


Scare them into abstinence if you must, but get them to practice it. Chastity belts if necessary, anything to prevent the spread of abomination and perversion.

Sex outside of marriage is an abomination and a perversion of what sex is supposed to about, the expression of love between a husband and wife.

Most of what teens are doing (oral, and sometimes even... anal!) is a perversion and abomination in and of itself.

Not really, if she pushed it on him.

The fact remains that he could have just said no himself though.

I am not defending the guy. I am merely asking what we should define as rape and what we should define as unlawful sex. Because rape to me indicates some kind of force.

SImple, not matter what she did, she is not capabel of making the decsion for her self at that age.
It was up to the eighteen year old to be a man and refuse the girl.
That should be pretty clear.
Unless you are saying that it is ok to take advantage of a minor because they are easily manipulated.
Or you are saying that as long as the female throws herself at a man the man can not be expected to show self control.
Does this boy attempt to have sex with every woman he sees dressed in a provocative manner.
Is so comletely incapable of controling his urges that we should feel sympathy for him sexing a pubesent?
Rape, that is what it is.
Also I might add this guy must be a real loser, I was stinging 25-30year olds when I was 18, he cant play ball in his own league-then throw him out of the game.

I think the guy must have some real social issues and am not at all defending him. Of course he should have said no to her. Of course he should be locked away. I am merely asking if it constitutes rape.

I never suggested either, let me add, lowering the age of consent. I think that is perfectly fine.

I am not defending the guy. I am merely asking what we should define as rape and what we should define as unlawful sex. Because rape to me indicates some kind of force.

Rape to me means sex without consent of both parties. Rape can be something that is done to someone while they're not in a position to consent, like when somebody's drunk, it can be done by force, it can be done in the confines of marriage, through coercion, which is pretty much what it amounts to when the instigator is in a position where they are expected to know better, abide by the law, and stop things from going too far. Being older tends to bring an expectation of maturity and as such, authority.

I am not defending the guy. I am merely asking what we should define as rape and what we should define as unlawful sex. Because rape to me indicates some kind of force.

No. Rape is usually defined as intercourse without consent. (There are various flavors depending on the specific cirumstances).

From a legal standpoint a twelve year old is to young to give legally cognizable consent whether or not she consentented to the sex in fact. The law judges anyone that young too immature to make such a decision because they lack the experience and age to fully understand the consequences of their actions, thus no consent. This is a fairly common theme in modern law, for example we do not try children as adults, nor sanction them as adults, for much the same reason. On the civil side minors cannot form contracts etc.

Force has nothing to do with rape, at least in the modern era. If absence of force was all that was required to negate rape chareges then druggin a woman and having sex with her would not count as rape, only sexual misconduct. However, drugging a woman and having sex with her does count as rape because her consent is lacking. (some jurisdictions go as far to hold that consent is lacking where the woman is just impaired psychologically, e.g. drunk nevermind unconscious.)

No. Rape is usually defined as intercourse without consent. (There are various flavors depending on the specific cirumstances).

From a legal standpoint a twelve year old is to young to give legally cognizable consent whether or not she consentented to the sex in fact. The law judges anyone that young too immature to make such a decision because they lack the experience and age to fully understand the consequences of their actions, thus no consent. This is a fairly common theme in modern law, for example we do not try children as adults, nor sanction them as adults, for much the same reason. On the civil side minors cannot form contracts etc.

Force has nothing to do with rape, at least in the modern era. If absence of force was all that was required to negate rape chareges then druggin a woman and having sex with her would not count as rape, only sexual misconduct. However, drugging a woman and having sex with her does count as rape because her consent is lacking. (some jurisdictions go as far to hold that consent is lacking where the woman is just impaired psychologically, e.g. drunk nevermind unconscious.)

Thanks for clearing that up.

Rape to me means sex without consent ...... it can be done in the confines of marriage, &tc.

Actually many jurisdictions still hold that "marital" rape is a legal impossibility as marriage itself is global consent to sexual intercourse, no matter how the woman feels at a particular moment.

Actually many jurisdictions still hold that "marital" rape is a legal impossibility as marriage itself is global consent to sexual intercourse, no matter how the woman feels at a particular moment.

Which is ridiculous of course.

Wellthe marital rape exception is a holdover from earlier common law, where things were more heavily influenced by the older christian (read C. of E) tennets of marriage, you know duty of the wife and all. I believe england did away with the marriage defense about a decade or so ago. Some us states and commowealth countries have not.

Wellthe marital rape exception is a holdover from earlier common law, where things were more heavily influenced by the older christian (read C. of E) tennets of marriage, you know duty of the wife and all. I believe england did away with the marriage defense about a decade or so ago. Some us states and commowealth countries have not.

Some US states still have laws on the books against sodomy. It always amused me in that respect, because if nobody's being hurt, they don't report it as a crime. If a woman reports spousal rape, then there's a fair chance she doesn't like what's happening. As for sodomy, I'd like to see the cops running around from door to door trying to enforce it.

knock knock knock! What'cha doin' in there?

Nothinnnng

;)

If he knew her age, then it was the idiot's own stupid fault and I have no sympathy with him no matter what he gets charged with.

Me either. My personal opinion on this is that anyone under about 16 is incapable of making an informed consent to intercourse. I also think that placing rapists and pedophiles in prison is a waste of money and prison cells. IMHO, they should be castrated. I know, sounds a bit harsh, but those are harsh acts and the recidivism rates for both crimes approaches 100% as a limit. Castration would insure 0% recidivism.

Me either. My personal opinion on this is that anyone under about 16 is incapable of making an informed consent to intercourse. I also think that placing rapists and pedophiles in prison is a waste of money and prison cells. IMHO, they should be castrated. I know, sounds a bit harsh, but those are harsh acts and the recidivism rates for both crimes approaches 100% as a limit. Castration would insure 0% recidivism.

Would it bollocks (pun intended). Has the death penalty cured Texas of "crime"?

Some US states still have laws on the books against sodomy. It always amused me in that respect, because if nobody's being hurt, they don't report it as a crime. If a woman reports spousal rape, then there's a fair chance she doesn't like what's happening. As for sodomy, I'd like to see the cops running around from door to door trying to enforce it.

knock knock knock! What'cha doin' in there?

Nothinnnng

;)

The majority of US states have sodomy laws, however they are all unconstitutional since Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, so they probably should be removed. In any event they can no-longer be enforced.

Which is ridiculous of course.

True, although the standards of proof for "marital rape" make it difficult in the extreme to prove.

Would it bollocks (pun intended). Has the death penalty cured Texas of "crime"?

Ah, but you have to admit the death penalty stops repeat offending. :)

If I remember my english legal history, the concept of age of consent was not introduced until some time in the 17th century. Prior to that you could have sex with anyone no matter what age they were and it was perfectly legal.

The first such statute only defined age of consent for girls and set it at ten years old.

So looking at it from a larger perspective, is what he did rape?

Yes, because the law says so, and that's how the law works.
the law is usually arbitrary crap made by a bunch of 70 year old men and whiny parents who hate their job.

Would it bollocks (pun intended). Has the death penalty cured Texas of "crime"?

Not at all. I think it's been pretty conclusively shown that punishment does not deter others from comitting the crime. But castration would make it physically impossible for recidivism, which is the point I was trying to make.

True, although the standards of proof for "marital rape" make it difficult in the extreme to prove.

No, it is no more difficult to proove than many other rapes. It is just held that within the confines of a marriage that consent (from a legal standpoint) is always present, thus rendering martial rape a legal and factual impossiblity.

Not at all. I think it's been pretty conclusively shown that punishment does not deter others from comitting the crime. But castration would make it physically impossible for recidivism, which is the point I was trying to make.

Misread.

the law is usually arbitrary crap made by a bunch of 70 year old men and whiny parents who hate their job.

It used to be that way.

Now it is made by 70 year old men and women, whiny parents, opportunistic politicians and arrested adolescents with deep seated pychological problems.

There are too many laws, we should get rif of a lot of them.

Misread.

Not a problem. I do that lots ( as I think you have pointed out to me before on other threads! ) :)

It used to be that way.

Now it is made by 70 year old men and women, whiny parents, opportunistic politicians and arrested adolescents with deep seated pychological problems.

There are too many laws, we should get rif of a lot of them.

I agree with your last statement above, but would love to know why you think it's a bad thing that laws are made by those with more experience, particularly "70 year old men and women."

No. Rape is usually defined as intercourse without consent. (There are various flavors depending on the specific cirumstances).

From a legal standpoint a twelve year old is to young to give legally cognizable consent whether or not she consentented to the sex in fact. The law judges anyone that young too immature to make such a decision because they lack the experience and age to fully understand the consequences of their actions, thus no consent. This is a fairly common theme in modern law, for example we do not try children as adults, nor sanction them as adults, for much the same reason. On the civil side minors cannot form contracts etc.

Force has nothing to do with rape, at least in the modern era. If absence of force was all that was required to negate rape chareges then druggin a woman and having sex with her would not count as rape, only sexual misconduct. However, drugging a woman and having sex with her does count as rape because her consent is lacking. (some jurisdictions go as far to hold that consent is lacking where the woman is just impaired psychologically, e.g. drunk nevermind unconscious.)


I agree with most everything you just said except for "force has nothing to do with rape, at least in the modern era". Speak with someone who was raped by some creep holding a gun to her head and letting his friends take turns until she passes out from the pain and then tell me it has nothing to do with force. True it is rape if you have sex with someone who is unconcious or incoherrent for whatever reason, but lets not forget that violent rape occurs -today , tomorrow, yesterday. Anyone who rapes someone in that manner should have their genitals slowly chewed off by rats.

I agree with most everything you just said except for "force has nothing to do with rape, at least in the modern era". Speak with someone who was raped by some creep holding a gun to her head and letting his friends take turns until she passes out from the pain and then tell me it has nothing to do with force. True it is rape if you have sex with someone who is unconcious or incoherrent for whatever reason, but lets not forget that violent rape occurs -today , tomorrow, yesterday. Anyone who rapes someone in that manner should have their genitals slowly chewed off by rats.

Well rape qua rape, force has nothing to do with it, it is not a necessary element, rape can occur with or without force being present. So i think you miss my point.

Other than that, the law is cognizant of your concern and addresses it differently in different jurisdictions. In some additional charges, e.g. criminal assualt will be brought; in others it will change the nature of the underlying rape charge, eg. aggrevated rape or have different criminal degrees of rape (like murder).

As to your genital comment, I'm fairly sure the eighth amendment would prevent that.

I agree with most everything you just said except for "force has nothing to do with rape, at least in the modern era". Speak with someone who was raped by some creep holding a gun to her head and letting his friends take turns until she passes out from the pain and then tell me it has nothing to do with force. True it is rape if you have sex with someone who is unconcious or incoherrent for whatever reason, but lets not forget that violent rape occurs -today , tomorrow, yesterday. Anyone who rapes someone in that manner should have their genitals slowly chewed off by rats.

Well rape qua rape, force has nothing to do with it, it is not a necessary element, rape can occur with or without force being present. So i think you miss my point.

Other than that, the law is cognizant of your concern and addresses it differently in different jurisdictions. In some additional charges, e.g. criminal assualt will be brought; in others it will change the nature of the underlying rape charge, eg. aggrevated rape or have different criminal degrees of rape (like with murder).

As to your genital comment, I'm fairly sure the eighth amendment would prevent that.

I agree with your last statement above, but would love to know why you think it's a bad thing that laws are made by those with more experience, particularly "70 year old men and women."

I don't believe I expressed a preference.

But if I did, I would say while it is not always a bad thing, sometimes 70 year olds lack the requisite social context to make effective jugdments about what the law is and what it should be.

The bench (esp. the federal bench) is cluttered with judges who still think that the culture wars of the 1960s and 70s are going on, and so you get reactionaries from both sides making rulings. Guess what? Most of that is now over so they often miss the point of what is really at issues are the scope of where their rulings should be.

There should be a mandatory retirement age for judges. Finis.

Likewise law makers: Robert Byrd is a prime example, he still doesn't seem to realize that the new deal era ended about fourty years ago, he is still building major public works projects. Again Finis.

Its hard on those older folks who still have a lot to contribute, unfortunatley most of the good ones tend to retire anyway, so we are left with the chaff - usually. You know the hangers on who accomplished nothing for the bulk of their career.

I think the +/- 2 years rule starting with a minimum age of 14 works fine.A different rule I've heard suggested, more to do with the "ick" factor than legality is "Half your age plus seven", which if appplied legally would mean:

If you are 13, partner should be at least 13.5 (but you are not legal for your partner, hence illegal <14)
If you are 14, partner should be at least 14 (partner must /also/ be 14 to be legal)
If you are 15, partner should be at least 14.5 (partner cannot be more than 16)
If you are 16, partner should be at least 15 (partner cannot be more than 18)
If you are 17, partner should be at least 15.5 (partner cannot be more than 20)
If you are 18, partner should be at least 16 (partner cannot be more than 22)
(Now within realms of legality, anyway, but lets go ahead for a few more years)
If you are 19, partner should be at least 16.5
If you are 20, partner should be at least 17
If you are 21, partner should be at least 17.5
[...]
If you are 30, partner should be at least 22, but I think there's got to be an upper cuttof whereby all mutually 18+ relationships are free of legal restrictions, or else someone like Peter Sringfellow would be in severe trouble... On the other hand... :)

the judges "logic" makes sense until you have more experience in the sexual abuse of children

(i had a friend who was a social worker working with at risk children for a while)

pedophiles will talk about how sexy and seductive 5 year old girls are. how they wanted it. how irresistable they are. its justifying their horrendous actions and blaming their victim for what happened.


maybe the judge remembered too well what it was like to be a horny 18 year old man. instead of thinking of the girl, he was identifying with the man.

if you are a MAN, then even if a 12 year old comes to you stark naked begging you for sex, you say NO. your previous online relationship doesnt matter. what seems mature and sensual and loving when you are typing is different from what you do when you realize that your beloved is 12 freaking years old.

i can see your confusion. this badly raised girl DID want to have sex. the man didnt force her. it may in fact have been exactly what the girl was dreaming it would be.

that doesnt matter

the LAW, as every man (and these days every woman) needs to know, has an age restriction for who you are legally allowed to have sex with. he violated that law and needs to be punished according to the demands of that law.


in this age of "sex offenders" having to register wherever they go, these laws and their enforcement are much more important than ever. (i dont know that important is the word i want to use) there are 18 year olds these days who have sex with their almost 16 year old girlfriend and end up on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives. a list that doesnt discriminate between him and the serial rapist/predator.

the law needs to recognize the difference between statutory rape and forced rape. in most places it does. but younger teens do need to be protected from adult sexual predators who know how easy it is to manipulate impressionable teens into sex.

Well rape qua rape, force has nothing to do with it, it is not a necessary element, rape can occur with or without force being present. So i think you miss my point.

Other than that, the law is cognizant of your concern and addresses it differently in different jurisdictions. In some additional charges, e.g. criminal assualt will be brought; in others it will change the nature of the underlying rape charge, eg. aggrevated rape or have different criminal degrees of rape (like with murder).

As to your genital comment, I'm fairly sure the eighth amendment would prevent that.


Most everything is addressed differently in different jurisdictions. And you can slice it up how you like, doesnt change the fact that force is a factor in rape. Manipulation is a kind of mental force. Predators prey on innocent children and make them think that its just a display of affection.Then there are those children who are so eager to please the adults around them to gain favor, acceptance, praise-whatevr emotional need they have lacking. Some adults guilt them into performing sex acts or shun them away if they wont do what they want them to do. Thats force too.

As for the eight amendment, I think maybe they should talk to a rape victim about whats cruel and unusual. Then we could truely let the punishments fit the crimes.

That to me is statutory rape, though it sounds like the 12-year-old raped the 18 year old from a first reading of the story. That's what we Americans would call sex with a minor.

Perhaps the judge was technically wrong or legally wrong to set the 18 year old down for a smaller crime (misdemeanor?), but law isn't always black or white. There might have been a precedent for his actions in the past or there might have been some extenuating circumstance that gave the judge the opening he needed to soften the blow for the 18-year-old.

If you are 30, partner should be at least 22, but I think there's got to be an upper cuttof whereby all mutually 18+ relationships are free of legal restrictions, or else someone like Peter Sringfellow would be in severe trouble... On the other hand... :)
[/LIST]

Whew! Thank goodness you added this! I was prepping my keyboard for a MAJOR flame! :D

I've read all the posts in this, and to me, as an 18 year old girl living in the states, I believe age of consent is something hard to determine. I have friends who started having sex at 15, but they were with their boyfriend a long time. In one case the guy turned 18 while she was 16, would it then be rape because they had been having sex while it was legal? (I'd like to know this too, because my boyfriend was still 17 when I turned 18.) I believe we have the "two year rule" where as long as they are within two years of you, it's still legal.

I've always found that europe has tended to be wiser in their laws. Many people could consent at the age of 15 or 16 and know full-well what they were doing, however some cannot. It's very difficult, and in my opinion it SHOULD be case by case. Or they should change it to possibly a five year rule? So that the 18 year old senior in high school could date and eventually sleep with the freshman in high school. I've seen it before, and it happens a lot.

In defense of the guy, I've been in bed with a guy just making-out and the guy's natural response is "sex." Women can be very sensual, we all know this, and we use it. So, if she came in rubbing all up against him, a question we need to ask is was HE in a state of mind to say "no"? In my experiences he wouldn't have been.

There are some things that we don't know. Did the parents know he was there? Is the girl mentally inhibited in any way? How did it get reported? Did the parents find them in bed together?? Those are important.

I've read all the posts in this, and to me, as an 18 year old girl living in the states, I believe age of consent is something hard to determine. I have friends who started having sex at 15, but they were with their boyfriend a long time. In one case the guy turned 18 while she was 16, would it then be rape because they had been having sex while it was legal? (I'd like to know this too, because my boyfriend was still 17 when I turned 18.) I believe we have the "two year rule" where as long as they are within two years of you, it's still legal.

I've always found that europe has tended to be wiser in their laws. Many people could consent at the age of 15 or 16 and know full-well what they were doing, however some cannot. It's very difficult, and in my opinion it SHOULD be case by case. Or they should change it to possibly a five year rule? So that the 18 year old senior in high school could date and eventually sleep with the freshman in high school. I've seen it before, and it happens a lot.

In defense of the guy, I've been in bed with a guy just making-out and the guy's natural response is "sex." Women can be very sensual, we all know this, and we use it. So, if she came in rubbing all up against him, a question we need to ask is was HE in a state of mind to say "no"? In my experiences he wouldn't have been.

There are some things that we don't know. Did the parents know he was there? Is the girl mentally inhibited in any way? How did it get reported? Did the parents find them in bed together?? Those are important.

This is supposedly why the law is administered by judges, not by computer. :)

Most everything is addressed differently in different jurisdictions. And you can slice it up how you like, doesnt change the fact that force is a factor in rape. Manipulation is a kind of mental force. Predators prey on innocent children and make them think that its just a display of affection.Then there are those children who are so eager to please the adults around them to gain favor, acceptance, praise-whatevr emotional need they have lacking. Some adults guilt them into performing sex acts or shun them away if they wont do what they want them to do. Thats force too.

As for the eight amendment, I think maybe they should talk to a rape victim about whats cruel and unusual. Then we could truely let the punishments fit the crimes.

Look, I respect that you feel passionately about this, but you are confusing fuzzy literary interpretation with legal clarity.

By your logic there is no difference between armed robbery and petit-larceny. Clearly there is.

If one were to insert your definition of force into the legal code, it would make it meaningless. Force is not a factor in rape - at least not as a legal term of art - consent is. Rape is intercourse absent consent of the woman. End of story. How that consent is gained however alters the ultimate disposition of the case. Forcing someone to be gang raped iat gun point is worse than gatting someone drunk and "taking advantage." So what's your problem.

As to your point about asking the victim, under our legal system her opinion is irrelevant. Crimes are, by definition, against society as a whole not a particular individual. Which is why the pleading are always caption People v. or State v. or Regina v. , not (victims name) v. The point of this is to remove the element of revenge, amongst other things, and keep the social contract.

Also as to you point about the eigth amendment, it serves a very good purpose, or do you believe that that Laurana Bobbit woman should have had her genitals removed. I doubt it.

We don't mutilate people. Finis.

Edit: When I say force is not a factor in rape, I mean that it is not a necessary element for the crime of rape to have occured, not that rapes do not often involve force. They often do, and the penalties where force is present are usually greater. I thought that my postion was abundantly clear from my earlier posts on this topic, but apparently people have difficulty following the plot and then go on to accuse me of all sorts of things

Look, I respect that you feel passionately about this, but you are confusing fuzzy literary interpretation with legal clarity.

By your logic there is no difference between armed robbery and petit-larceny. Clearly there is.

If one were to insert your definition of force into the legal code, it would make it meaningless. Force is not a factor in rape - at least not as a legal term of art - consent is. Rape is intercourse absent consent of the woman. End of story. How that consent is gained however alters the ultimate disposition of the case. Forcing someone to be gang raped iat gun point is worse than gatting someone drunk and "taking advantage." So what's your problem.

As to your point about asking the victim, under our legal system her opinion is irrelevant. Crimes are, by definition, against society as a whole not a particular individual. Which is why the pleading are always caption People v. or State v. or Regina v. , not (victims name) v. The point of this is to remove the element of revenge, amongst other things, and keep the social contract.

Also as to you point about the eigth amendment, it serves a very good purpose, or do you believe that that Laurana Bobbit woman should have had her genitals removed. I doubt it.

We don't mutilate people. Finis.

Um ... there are several things wrong with your post, not the least of which is that many states have categories of "rape," including "forcible rape." And many states also place great weight on the testimony of the victim, what sort of injuries if any she experienced, what her emotional state was at the time, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, etc.

Force is not a factor in rape - at least not as a legal term of art - consent is. Rape is intercourse absent consent of the woman. End of story. How that consent is gained however alters the ultimate disposition of the case. Forcing someone to be gang raped iat gun point is worse than gatting someone drunk and "taking advantage." So what's your problem.

Force is a HUGE factor in rape. It turns it from "rape" into "forcible rape" just like the other person just said. The brutality experienced weighs heavily on the sentence, consent is just one part of it.

Look, I respect that you feel passionately about this, but you are confusing fuzzy literary interpretation with legal clarity.

By your logic there is no difference between armed robbery and petit-larceny. Clearly there is.

If one were to insert your definition of force into the legal code, it would make it meaningless. Force is not a factor in rape - at least not as a legal term of art - consent is. Rape is intercourse absent consent of the woman. End of story. How that consent is gained however alters the ultimate disposition of the case. Forcing someone to be gang raped iat gun point is worse than gatting someone drunk and "taking advantage." So what's your problem.

As to your point about asking the victim, under our legal system her opinion is irrelevant. Crimes are, by definition, against society as a whole not a particular individual. Which is why the pleading are always caption People v. or State v. or Regina v. , not (victims name) v. The point of this is to remove the element of revenge, amongst other things, and keep the social contract.

Also as to you point about the eigth amendment, it serves a very good purpose, or do you believe that that Laurana Bobbit woman should have had her genitals removed. I doubt it.

We don't mutilate people. Finis.

Your knowledge, or lack or knowledge of the law is amusing. I guess I can show you better than I can tell you. The dictionary defines rape as the following: (notice the word force )

rape

Pronunciation: (rAp), [key]
—n., v., raped, rap•ing.

—n.
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. See statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic.the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

—v.t.
1. to force to have sexual intercourse.
2. to plunder (a place); despoil.
3. to seize, take, or carry off by force.

—v.i.
to commit rape.

rape

Pronunciation: (rAp), [key]
—n.
a plant, Brassica napus, of the mustard family, whose leaves are used for food for hogs, sheep, etc., and whose seeds yield rape oil.

rape

Pronunciation: (rAp), [key]
—n.
the residue of grapes, after the juice has been extracted, used as a filter in making vinegar.


ALSO- here is the legislative authorities definition of rape:
RAPE - The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man (or vice versa) forcibly and unlawfully against her will. The knowledge of the woman's person must be forcibly and against her will; and if her consent has not been voluntarily and freely given, (when she has the power to consent,) the offence will be complete, nor will any subsequent acquiescence on her part do away the guilt of the ravisher. A consent obtained from a woman by actual violence, by duress or threats of murder, or by the administration of stupefying drugs, is not such a consent as will shield the offender, nor turn his crime into adultery or fornication.

Quoted by Lexicon's Law Library

You are narrow sighted and have a weak unfounded argument. Dont insult my intelligence again with your condescending remarks.

I've read all the posts in this, and to me, as an 18 year old girl living in the states, I believe age of consent is something hard to determine. I have friends who started having sex at 15, but they were with their boyfriend a long time. In one case the guy turned 18 while she was 16, would it then be rape because they had been having sex while it was legal? (I'd like to know this too, because my boyfriend was still 17 when I turned 18.) I believe we have the "two year rule" where as long as they are within two years of you, it's still legal.

I've always found that europe has tended to be wiser in their laws. Many people could consent at the age of 15 or 16 and know full-well what they were doing, however some cannot. It's very difficult, and in my opinion it SHOULD be case by case. Or they should change it to possibly a five year rule? So that the 18 year old senior in high school could date and eventually sleep with the freshman in high school. I've seen it before, and it happens a lot.

In defense of the guy, I've been in bed with a guy just making-out and the guy's natural response is "sex." Women can be very sensual, we all know this, and we use it. So, if she came in rubbing all up against him, a question we need to ask is was HE in a state of mind to say "no"? In my experiences he wouldn't have been.

There are some things that we don't know. Did the parents know he was there? Is the girl mentally inhibited in any way? How did it get reported? Did the parents find them in bed together?? Those are important.


The reason for bright lines on issues like this is there is no other practicable way to delimit it. It is a frequent theme in the law, are there 17 year olds mature and intelligent enough to vote? You betcha. Are there people who are too immature to vote whatever their age? Of course. We accept the over and underinclusive nature of these legal distinctions with regard to age limits however because any harm that might be caused by them is minor and temporary. I.e., you grow out of them. In the case of sexual intercourse, the age of sexual maturity and unrestricted ability to consent to sex legally are so close together that the net burden is not much. Also the potential for injustice by having the bright line is not as great as the potential if everything is judged on a case by case basis.

Also, as to the two year "rule" its been about ten years since I though about this kind of sthing and I can't be sure, but I'm fairly sure its bogus. My recollection is, from the age of 16 onwards you can have sex with anyone within four years older. At 18 sex with anyone over eighteen. So a sixten year old can sleep with a twenty year old. And this is the rule for most jurisdictions. (It sounds right but you should double check it if you plan to act upon it).

Finally, there is the issue of prosecutorial discretion. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and US District attorneys have the right to decline to prosecute if they feel that it would be unjust. There is no review of this decision and it is final. (Although they can change their minds later on provided they are within the statute of limitations).

It would be highly unlikely therefore that any seventeen year old would ever be porsecuted for sleeping with their fifteen year-old partner, absent some other evidence of other sexual misconduct, for example date rape. In the normal girlfriend boyfriend situtation I have never heard of this happening, even though theoretically it could.

And yes I understand the difference when it comes to Statutory Rape.

Force is a HUGE factor in rape. It turns it from "rape" into "forcible rape" just like the other person just said. The brutality experienced weighs heavily on the sentence, consent is just one part of it.


Thank you to Eutrusca and Kiwanje for your posts.....I was about to bang my head against the wall dealing with "unforceable rape poster" over there.

Also, as to the two year "rule" its been about ten years since I though about this kind of sthing and I can't be sure, but I'm fairly sure its bogus. My recollection is, from the age of 16 onwards you can have sex with anyone within four years older. At 18 sex with anyone over eighteen. So a sixten year old can sleep with a twenty year old. And this is the rule for most jurisdictions. (It sounds right but you should double check it if you plan to act upon it).

This varies from state to state. The "age of consent" in North Carolina use to be 13! Yes, thirteen! Now there is a law regarding age span between the two parties.

Thank you to Eutrusca and Kiwanje for your posts.....I was about to bang my head against the wall dealing with "unforceable rape poster" over there.
:D

Your knowledge, or lack or knowledge of the law is amusing. I guess I can show you better than I can tell you. The dictionary defines rape as the following: (notice the word force )

rape

Pronunciation: (rAp), [key]
—n., v., raped, rap•ing.

—n.
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. See statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic.the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

—v.t.
1. to force to have sexual intercourse.
2. to plunder (a place); despoil.
3. to seize, take, or carry off by force.

—v.i.
to commit rape.

rape

Pronunciation: (rAp), [key]
—n.
a plant, Brassica napus, of the mustard family, whose leaves are used for food for hogs, sheep, etc., and whose seeds yield rape oil.

rape

Pronunciation: (rAp), [key]
—n.
the residue of grapes, after the juice has been extracted, used as a filter in making vinegar.


ALSO- here is the legislative authorities definition of rape:
RAPE - The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man (or vice versa) forcibly and unlawfully against her will. The knowledge of the woman's person must be forcibly and against her will; and if her consent has not been voluntarily and freely given, (when she has the power to consent,) the offence will be complete, nor will any subsequent acquiescence on her part do away the guilt of the ravisher. A consent obtained from a woman by actual violence, by duress or threats of murder, or by the administration of stupefying drugs, is not such a consent as will shield the offender, nor turn his crime into adultery or fornication.

Quoted by Lexicon's Law Library

You are narrow sighted and have a weak unfounded argument. Dont insult my intelligence again with your condescending remarks.


That's a dictionary definition. Idiot. Dictionaries are not law, they are just books with common usage definitions of words.

Try this:

New York Penal Code: Section 130.25 Rape in the Third Degree.

A person is guilty of Rape in the third degree when:

1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old; or,

2. Being twenty one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married less than seventeen years old.

It also defines incapable of consent as

section 130.05

2. b) incapacity to consent.

which is defined as

3. A person is incapable deemed incapable of consent where:

a) less than seventeen years old
b) mentally defective
c) mentally incapacitated
d) physically helpless
e) commited to care and custody etc.


Notice how nowhere in the actual criminal definition of rape 3 in new york state is force a required element.

If you want to disagree with me about the law fine, but at least get some proper references. Stop looking things up in online dictionaries, it is irrelvant and prooves nothing.

I suppose you would preface a discussion about homocide with websters definition too. Please learn something before being so rude.

In defense of the guy, I've been in bed with a guy just making-out and the guy's natural response is "sex." Women can be very sensual, we all know this, and we use it. So, if she came in rubbing all up against him, a question we need to ask is was HE in a state of mind to say "no"? In my experiences he wouldn't have been.

There are some things that we don't know. Did the parents know he was there? Is the girl mentally inhibited in any way? How did it get reported? Did the parents find them in bed together?? Those are important.
not when the girl is 12

a man needs to know that sometimes he has to be the one to put the brakes on. this was one of those times

perhaps if you imagine this girl as a 9 year old it would make a difference in how you see it. if she had come to his bed all sexy and seductive at 9 would you think that it might be ok?

how about at 5?

there are just some lines a man (or woman) shouldnt cross. this wasnt his almost 16 year old girlfriend. this was a 12 year old and no matter how old she might ACT, she was still 12.

he certainly shouldnt be given the same punishment as a brutal rapist who leaves his victim half dead but he should face the law as it exists. he is just the kind of person that it was written for.

Um ... there are several things wrong with your post, not the least of which is that many states have categories of "rape," including "forcible rape." And many states also place great weight on the testimony of the victim, what sort of injuries if any she experienced, what her emotional state was at the time, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, etc.

First re-read my earlier posts. I say clearly that jurisdictions make account of situations where threat of or violent force is used. Usually as a different degree of rape or classifying it as agrevated rape.

My point is that you can have a rape occur without force being used. At least in the legal sense.

In ney york forcible compulsion is defined for the purposes of the penal code thusly:

NY Pen. C. Section 130.00

8. "Forcible compulsion" means either to compel by either:

a) use of physical force

b) a threat express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another person, or in fear that he, she or another person will immeadiatley be kidnapped.

That is black letter New York law. And no amount of quoting online dictionaries will alter it. Nor are online dictionaries recognized legal authority for the purposes of determining the elements of a crime.

In New York, you can be charged and convicted with the crime of rape 3, absent any showing of force. Therefore force is not a necessary element of the crime of rape. Q.E. f**king D.

If I were to accept peechtree's definition of force which aparently just means getting someone to do something against their will or best interests then robbery would be the same as petit larceny. If you have problems with this take it up with your elected representative, I don't make the law, I just happen to know what it actually is.

That's a dictionary definition. Idiot. Dictionaries are not law, they are just books with common usage definitions of words.

Try this:

New York Penal Code: Section 130.25 Rape in the Third Degree.

A person is guilty of Rape in the third degree when:

1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old; or,

2. Being twenty one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married less than seventeen years old.

It also defines incapable of consent as

section 130.05

2. b) incapacity to consent.

which is defined as

3. A person is incapable deemed incapable of consent where:

a) less than seventeen years old
b) mentally defective
c) mentally incapacitated
d) physically helpless
e) commited to care and custody etc.


Notice how nowhere in the actual criminal definition of rape 3 in new york state is force a required element.

If you want to disagree with me about the law fine, but at least get some proper references. Stop looking things up in online dictionaries, it is irrelvant and prooves nothing.

I suppose you would preface a discussion about homocide with websters definition too. Please learn something before being so rude.

OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you not read the entire post???It was from a LEGAL LAW LIBRARY SITE. The verbage is used to draw up court documents and state offenses. Youre really an idiot. I have to ignore you now because my blood pressure is rising. Anyone who says "force has nothing to do with rape" is stupid as hell. And no one is saying that every rape is by physical force...you are taking portions of our posts and twisting them to fit your views. Youre weak. Consider yourself ignored due to excessive stupidity. There should be a law against that! Youd get a life sentence.

OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you not read the entire post???It was from a LEGAL LAW LIBRARY SITE. The verbage is used to draw up court documents and state offenses. Youre really an idiot. I have to ignore you now because my blood pressure is rising. Anyone who says "force has nothing to do with rape" is stupid as hell. And no one is saying that every rape is by physical force...you are taking portions of our posts and twisting them to fit your views. Youre weak. Consider yourself ignored due to excessive stupidity. There should be a law against that! Youd get a life sentence.

So the New York Penal code is wrong then.

That verbage is not used to draw up court documents and state offencese. Rape in most places is now a statutory crime. When you are drawing up "documents" you would have to cite to a specific statute. What you posted are neither statutes or actual case law. Thus they have no relevance. I don't care what online source you got them from.

I merely point out that a rape can occur, and there can be a crime without the use of force in the legal sense and I state no personal opinion on the matter. I also go on to point out that force is often present and where it is the penalties are more severe. You then fly off the handle and quote meaningless layman's references and call me an idiot and accuse me of "twisting posts".

You have no response to the New York Penal code which actually is the law that governs approx. 20,000,000 people. You know what. go call your DA's office and see what they say about your definition. And when they laugh at you don't start crying.

OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you not read the entire post???It was from a LEGAL LAW LIBRARY SITE. The verbage is used to draw up court documents and state offenses. Youre really an idiot. I have to ignore you now because my blood pressure is rising. Anyone who says "force has nothing to do with rape" is stupid as hell. And no one is saying that every rape is by physical force...you are taking portions of our posts and twisting them to fit your views. Youre weak. Consider yourself ignored due to excessive stupidity. There should be a law against that! Youd get a life sentence.

Oh, and in the future when discussing legal propositions, try at least to cite to statute or case law. At the very least a restatement. You only display your total ignorance of the law otherwise.

the judges "logic" makes sense until you have more experience in the sexual abuse of children

(i had a friend who was a social worker working with at risk children for a while)

pedophiles will talk about how sexy and seductive 5 year old girls are. how they wanted it. how irresistable they are. its justifying their horrendous actions and blaming their victim for what happened.


maybe the judge remembered too well what it was like to be a horny 18 year old man. instead of thinking of the girl, he was identifying with the man.

if you are a MAN, then even if a 12 year old comes to you stark naked begging you for sex, you say NO. your previous online relationship doesnt matter. what seems mature and sensual and loving when you are typing is different from what you do when you realize that your beloved is 12 freaking years old.

i can see your confusion. this badly raised girl DID want to have sex. the man didnt force her. it may in fact have been exactly what the girl was dreaming it would be.

that doesnt matter

the LAW, as every man (and these days every woman) needs to know, has an age restriction for who you are legally allowed to have sex with. he violated that law and needs to be punished according to the demands of that law.


in this age of "sex offenders" having to register wherever they go, these laws and their enforcement are much more important than ever. (i dont know that important is the word i want to use) there are 18 year olds these days who have sex with their almost 16 year old girlfriend and end up on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives. a list that doesnt discriminate between him and the serial rapist/predator.

the law needs to recognize the difference between statutory rape and forced rape. in most places it does. but younger teens do need to be protected from adult sexual predators who know how easy it is to manipulate impressionable teens into sex.
I agree with everything you said.. except replace MAN with person. Contrary to California penal code which states it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, non-consentual sex is rape.

And the law does differentiate between statutory rape and rape. Hence the different definition.

the judges "logic" makes sense until you have more experience in the sexual abuse of children

(i had a friend who was a social worker working with at risk children for a while)

pedophiles will talk about how sexy and seductive 5 year old girls are. how they wanted it. how irresistable they are. its justifying their horrendous actions and blaming their victim for what happened.


maybe the judge remembered too well what it was like to be a horny 18 year old man. instead of thinking of the girl, he was identifying with the man.

if you are a MAN, then even if a 12 year old comes to you stark naked begging you for sex, you say NO. your previous online relationship doesnt matter. what seems mature and sensual and loving when you are typing is different from what you do when you realize that your beloved is 12 freaking years old.

i can see your confusion. this badly raised girl DID want to have sex. the man didnt force her. it may in fact have been exactly what the girl was dreaming it would be.

that doesnt matter

the LAW, as every man (and these days every woman) needs to know, has an age restriction for who you are legally allowed to have sex with. he violated that law and needs to be punished according to the demands of that law.


in this age of "sex offenders" having to register wherever they go, these laws and their enforcement are much more important than ever. (i dont know that important is the word i want to use) there are 18 year olds these days who have sex with their almost 16 year old girlfriend and end up on the sex offender registry for the rest of their lives. a list that doesnt discriminate between him and the serial rapist/predator.

the law needs to recognize the difference between statutory rape and forced rape. in most places it does. but younger teens do need to be protected from adult sexual predators who know how easy it is to manipulate impressionable teens into sex.

A very good point. I am coming round to your way of thinking. I am of course not suggesting though that paedophilia or sleeping with people under the age of consent is a good idea. I am just keen to see the law make a difference between this 18 year old doing sommat very stupid, and a dirty, filthy gang holding up a terrified woman and raping her in an alley etc.

That's my main concern.

OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Did you not read the entire post???It was from a LEGAL LAW LIBRARY SITE. The verbage is used to draw up court documents and state offenses. Youre really an idiot. I have to ignore you now because my blood pressure is rising. Anyone who says "force has nothing to do with rape" is stupid as hell. And no one is saying that every rape is by physical force...you are taking portions of our posts and twisting them to fit your views. Youre weak. Consider yourself ignored due to excessive stupidity. There should be a law against that! Youd get a life sentence
I don't believe he was saying that rape means no force. I believe that he's saying that if someone isn't forced, it can still be rape.

Rape can involve force............. correct.
All rape involves force.............. incorrect.
Rape can happen without force.. correct
All rapes happen without force... incorrect.

I think he's arguing that it's not necessary for force to be involved to define it as rape, not that all rapes are not violent.

I don't believe he was saying that rape means no force. I believe that he's saying that if someone isn't forced, it can still be rape.

Rape can involve force............. correct.
All rape involves force.............. incorrect.
Rape can happen without force.. correct
All rapes happen without force... incorrect.

I think he's arguing that it's not necessary for force to be involved to define it as rape, not that all rapes are not violent.

Thank you, I didn't think my posts were that obtuse.

I hope you also agree with me that dictionaries are not the appropriate source for authority when supporting legal propositions - even black's law dictionary.

I don't believe he was saying that rape means no force. I believe that he's saying that if someone isn't forced, it can still be rape.

Rape can involve force............. correct.
All rape involves force.............. incorrect.
Rape can happen without force.. correct
All rapes happen without force... incorrect.

I think he's arguing that it's not necessary for force to be involved to define it as rape, not that all rapes are not violent.


He has altered his original stance. The statement that prompted me to reply to him was "force has nothing to do with rape". His original view said that. Everything you said up there^^ is exactly what I've been arguing. Its just now that he has said "thats all I was trying to say". Which is not what he originally said.

I agree with everything you said.. except replace MAN with person. Contrary to California penal code which states it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, non-consentual sex is rape.

And the law does differentiate between statutory rape and rape. Hence the different definition.

I've always wondered about that ... does erection imply "consent?" :)

All I know is that I've met 18 year olds who mentally are 16 and 12 year olds that mentally are 16, depending on how they grew up and other factors, and none of these laws that are so blanket take that into affect. Sure when you are talking about all underage people, it works, but when you get around the age of adulthood, it doesn't work.

I've always wondered about that ... does erection imply "consent?" :)

Nope. Anxiety can produce arousal, and under the guidelines, force can be coercion, a threat implied or express, so conceivably, a woman could threaten a man with something if he doesn't manage to have sex with her. Or...she could use a foreign object to penetrate him.

She could even use physical force, for example, drugging him and restraining him while he is unconscious, then making him have sex with her. Women have a pretty good handle on passive violence, due to the fact that they usually don't have as much physical strength. In fact, my own belief is that if a man were to use force on me, he'd better make sure that he finishes me, or I don't catch him asleep.

Of course, you know all this, but I thought I'd cover it just the same. Men get raped too, and it should be taken every bit as seriously. The truth is, though, the male of the species is responsible for something like 97% of all violent crime, although the female is, sadly, catching up with him.

Nope. Anxiety can produce arousal, and under the guidelines, force can be coercion, a threat implied or express, so conceivably, a woman could threaten a man with something if he doesn't manage to have sex with her. Or...she could use a foreign object to penetrate him.

She could even use physical force, for example, drugging him and restraining him while he is unconscious, then making him have sex with her. Women have a pretty good handle on passive violence, due to the fact that they usually don't have as much physical strength. In fact, my own belief is that if a man were to use force on me, he'd better make sure that he finishes me, or I don't catch him asleep.

Of course, you know all this, but I thought I'd cover it just the same. Men get raped too, and it should be taken every bit as seriously. The truth is, though, the male of the species is responsible for something like 97% of all violent crime, although the female is, sadly, catching up with him.
Correct about the erection does not equal consent. However according to California penal code the phrase vaginal penetration is in the definition of rape, ergo man can not be raped. I think that should change.

As to your assertion that 97% of violent crime are commited by males...that's not quite accurate.. it's more like 86%. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wo.txt

I've always wondered about that ... does erection imply "consent?" :)


No it doesn't, to think that would be idiotic... A man cannot control when he gets an erection and when not. Something can be physically enjoyable but not necessarily wanted or desired.

This varies from state to state. The "age of consent" in North Carolina use to be 13! Yes, thirteen! Now there is a law regarding age span between the two parties.


In my state anybody between 13 and 17 may have sexual relations with any fellow consenting person aged 13-17.

No it doesn't, to think to would is idiotic... A man cannot control when he gets an erection and when not. Something can be physically enjoyable but not necessarily wanted or desired.

Um ... who said a man cannot control when he gets an erection??? That's utter nonsense!

Correct about the erection does not equal consent. However according to California penal code the phrase vaginal penetration is in the definition of rape, ergo man can not be raped. I think that should change.

As to your assertion that 97% of violent crime are commited by males...that's not quite accurate.. it's more like 86%. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wo.txt

I thought they changed it to sexual intercourse. Sec 261 et seq. Wasn't there some flap about it a while ago.

Prolly get my head bitten off again by someone for this :(

Um ... who said a man cannot control when he gets an erection??? That's utter nonsense!
No, it's not utter nonsense. There are lot's of stimuli that can produce an erection.

Take this hypothetical situation... a man is kidnapped by a woman at gun point. She puts him in restraints where he can not escape. She proceeds to "manipulate" the situation until an erection occurs.

Are you saying that since the erection occured the man is thereby consenting to intercourse?

I thought they changed it to sexual intercourse. Sec 261 et seq. Wasn't there some flap about it a while ago.

Prolly get my head bitten off again by someone for this :(
Have to research, but when I left the state, it was still vaginal penetration.. I can only hope it was changed.

A very good point. I am coming round to your way of thinking. I am of course not suggesting though that paedophilia or sleeping with people under the age of consent is a good idea. I am just keen to see the law make a difference between this 18 year old doing sommat very stupid, and a dirty, filthy gang holding up a terrified woman and raping her in an alley etc.

That's my main concern.
absolutely
there IS a big difference between a man making a mistake and having sex with an almost legal girl and gang rape
the law needs to reflect that

Wellthe marital rape exception is a holdover from earlier common law, where things were more heavily influenced by the older christian (read C. of E) tennets of marriage, you know duty of the wife and all. I believe england did away with the marriage defense about a decade or so ago. Some us states and commowealth countries have not.
Yes they did, since 1992 or so.

No it doesn't, to think that would be idiotic... A man cannot control when he gets an erection and when not. Something can be physically enjoyable but not necessarily wanted or desired.
Yeah, but he can control what he does about it!