Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[VendettaNola]

EDIT: And women are not the only ones who can be raped, whatever the hell the ignorant feminists want to spout off. If a woman came up to me and hit me and tore my pants off, I would not like it one bit. I would yell for help and try to fight her off. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't work because I am a complete weakling, and I don't even pretend to try and act macho. I am a bi-sexual man, and I don't care whether it is a woman or man being raped, it is STILL RAPE.

I'm a SUPER feminist, and I'm not going to tell you men can't be raped. That's stupid, provably untrue and, again, crazy sexist. Anyone who purports to be a feminist and has that opinion is a whack job. Real feminists believe in EQUALITY, which, sometimes irritatingly, is a two way street.

I just checked the law in Louisiana (current personal residence), and you guys are ok. In no way does the statue exclude you from prosecuting rape (though check out number 3, weird)
http://www.babcockpartners.com/resources/statutes/louisiana-simple-rape-law

 

[trigger1992]

Theres sometimes no Coercing. If you have sex with a 15 year old and you are 16 years old you are a rapist. End of story. You are tried and convicted under the law of the same crime as pinning down a woman and brutally forcing yourself on her. Even if she agreed, initiated it or even forced the issue you are seen under the law as a violent rapist. This is obviously wrong and this man made a very valid point. That woman should be punched in her stupid face for thinking these two are THE EXACT SAME.

Yeah, this isnt quite right.
Going by the ages you used im assuming this is UK law you're talking about, under which a 16yo having 'consensual' sex with a 15yo would NEVER be found guilty of rape. Sex with a child maybe, but not rape. And if he had a reasonable reason to believe she was 16, hes fine anyway. I wish the news would get its facts straight sometimes...

 

[Katana314]

Breaking news! Breaking news!
Man Who Stole Potato Chips from Vending Machine in Bank Lobby tried for Bank Robbery!


Yeah, they're still criminals, but the 15-year-old thing is definitely right.

Heck, there are a few cases of what we normally think of as rape that I think should have a lightened penalty; ie, it could be determined the rapist had a fair reason to think the victim was consenting, but something didn't get across in dialog.

 

[Worgen]

awhile ago we had a guy who everyone was sure was going to win the race for governor here against ann richards and no one thought she had a chance since she was kinda libral for this stupid state but a couple days before the election in a radio interview he was asked about rape and his response was along the lines of, its a bad thing but sometimes the lady should just lay back and accept it, needless to say he lost the election and we ended up with a good governor who wasnt as effective as would have been good since the house hated her

 

[ArtanisCreed]

rape is rape. but stat. rape isnt the same thing as regular rape. And stat. rape is bs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape If it isnt forced what is the problem? Minors(~12 an up) have sex(course not all of them do). There is no disputing this fact. The courts making a big deal out of this is what causes alot of problems. The entire legal system needs reworked imo.

 

[razer17]

People don't suddenly, on their 16th birthday, wake up and discover a new ability to judge whether or not they should have sex.

There has to be a line in the sand. Period.

Actually, in an ideal world there wouldn't, because it would be judged on mental readiness. Sadly that's just a completely unfeasible solution to the problem. Point is, a 16 year old and a 15 year old could literally be a day apart, and one is a rapist. Line in the sand is bollocks, there has to be some sort of flexibility.

 

[Quellist]

At the moment i would say the laws defining rape could use some work and thats the reason for the sort of ambiguous comments Clark came up with. Generally this is gotten around by rape having no fixed sentencing tariff which one would hope allows judges to use their discretion.

One the one hand rape is rape but on the other stranger rape is usually less about sex and more about power and humiliation whereas date-rape is more about some guy who cant control himself and respect a woman's right to say no. Both are heinous crimes but i would say very different, with the latter offender much more likely to be able to be rehabilitated (not that he shouldn't also be punished).

In the UK sex between a 15 and a 17 year old afaik isn't defined as rape so on that point at least Clark got it 100% wrong.

 

[thetruefallen]

In a perfect world criminals go to trial where a respected members of the community/legal system decide the length of a sentence based of the severity of the act. It doesn't always work like that but here in a Australia it attempts to flounder in that general direction. Even if rape wasn't the issue discussed, i would still like to see more politicians try to tackle every aspect of every issue. In times of old a Naysayer was a paid member of (royal) court and there whole job was to intelligently argue the negative side of every issue so nothing was missed.
I don't honestly care what the legal definition of what "rape" is. as i will never commit rape and until i have a child i probably wont be overly concerned with it and everybody being a potential rapist.

 

[MercurySteam]

What I've always wanted to know is why sex why a minor is called statutory rape. I always thought that rape was defined by having sex with someone without their permission, so therefore if you're 18 and you're girlfriend's 17 and she gives you permission or not you're still a rapist.

I think the law calls sex with a minor rape due to the fact that lawyers and politicians assume that anyone under the age of 18 lacks the mental capacity to make the decision the have sex or not. This is true for some but definitely not all.

 

[world_of_dragons]

I'm not really sure what to make of this guy's argument since some of his wording threw me. But I'll say this; if a fifteen year old consents to a sexual act, then it shouldn't be met with as much force as the fifteen year old being forced into a sexual act.

 

[LuckyClover95]

He was saying though, that date rape is worse than normal rape. Which is different, and in that case, rape is rape.
I agree with the 15 year old consenting though.

 

[zehydra]

They're completely arbitrary, legally important no doubt, but still arbitrary. This applies to many things besides consentual sex however, my mother is part of our local Rotary Club and had an exchange student (aged 18, legally allowed to drink in Australia) sent home in disgrace from America because he was caught doing exactly what he does with his friends here.

The doctors and psychologists of different places will always have differing views and it is them who advise us and our elected government of the ideal age when one is ready for certain things. They are no more arbitrary than the age at which we reach puberty - there is simply less debate about the latter.

I lol'd at this. It's an absurdity to say that girls require a longer wait time for consent than guys. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

 

[irani_che]

17 year old having consented sex with a 15 year old in the UK is considered unlawfull sexual conduct, not rape. He SHOULD have known that.

but srsly, this government could not walk down downing street without accidentally curbstomping a puppy in front of cameras. thats how badly the coalition screw up

 

[XHolySmokesX]

I really hate some people sometimes, especially politicians.

Ed milliband, is a complete whimp who's just trying to win votes by agreeing with everyone who opposed the opposition.

To me there are two types of rape;
-having sex with someone who did not concent and is unaware (e.g. druging someone)
-Forecfully having sex with someone who is fully conscious and did no conscent, possibly with violence

that applies to both guys and girls of all ages

having sex, with someone below the age of 16, who conscents, is not nearly rape it's just the same as adults who conscent.

 

[maturin]

Oh, he's British. If it's in the news cycle over here (is it?), it's because of the attack on women's rights in general that Tea Party House of Reps launched, what with trying rename rape victims 'rape accusers,' talking about forcible and non-forcible rape (if you drug her drink, it's not at bad) and trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I'm inclined to agree with you OP.

I'm not sure if it's the same in other countries, but here if two consenting under-age people have sex it's considered rape, and the boy is automatically assumed to be in the wrong and the girl is perfectly innocent (not sure what would happen for a gay couple). And I find this disgusting... assuming they are both consenting and clearly know what they are doing there shouldn't be anything wrong, (admittedly they are under-age, but it shouldn't be considered rape at least). And it's horrible that the boy is accused of raping the girl and she is treated like she had no idea what he was doing or something.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

You are tried and convicted under the law of the same crime as pinning down a woman and brutally forcing yourself on her.

Noooot so much. Unless the law over there has changed since I last checked, a violent rapist and a statutory rape are not treated the same. In fact, there is no such conviction as "Rape." That might be used on TV, but only because inch think legal terms don't roll off the tongue.

Then again, the law may be different from my remembering.

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Alorxico]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

It's the way the law is written; you simply cannot be convicted of raping a man, as rape is legally "Penetrating a woman against her will." It's not a joke. It's sad, yes. But true.

And hold on, seriously? So in you're terrifying country men can't be raped by other men? Have your legislators seen, say, Pulp Fiction? Cause you might want to send them a copy of that with a note reading, 'this should probably be illegal'.

Until recently, the legal definition of rape was defined as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will", but in the early 2000 most states changed the wording to "forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will". HOWEVER, just because the definition has changed, doesn't mean people's attitudes towards it has changed with it. You will still encounter judges and juries that don't believe men can be raped and treat the whole trial with an air of "Really? You are expecting me to believe this?"

Definitions of "rape" taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

 

[kayisking]

As a politician, Justice minister at that, he should really have chosen his words better.

He's absolutely right of course. There are many degrees of severity for not only rape but every other crime. This is why penalties for almost all crimes are given in a range. Breaking into someone's house at raping them at knifepoint is worse than sex on a date where both parties were drunk, consent was implicit rather than explicit... actually I don't really know were I am going with this. I find it pretty difficult to illustrate an example of a "better" rape. Seriously it is an awful crime, and I pity the poor judges who have to sit down and decide exactly how one crime is more horrific than another crime and try to quantify human suffering and turn the result into a number of years in jail for the offender. I am glad I am neither a judge or a Justice Minister.

It is a sad state of affairs when the leaders of a country need to be carefull to not tell the truth to people, don't you agree?

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

Statutory rape (and it is rape) is a very serious offense. I see no problem with someone being forced onto the sex offenders registry for committing a sex crime.

If you truly believe that being unable to keep it in one's pants while making out with one's girlfriend when both are teenagers is deserving of the same life-long stigma as a fucking rapist, we have no more to discuss, as you're clearly blinded by your harsh black and white world view. Kids making stupid mistakes, because they're stupid kids, is NOT the same as traumatizing another human through rape.