Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[magnuslion]

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.

"He said, putting forth only his personal opinion, not backing it with anything remotely related to research or fact."

Luckily for you, the internet exists and you can put your uninformed, highly egocentric opinion out there without being humiliated in front of dozens of people. enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

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?

Finally, someone who has got right down to my main gripe about this. The article itself was simply an example to highlight how people in the public eye (especially politicians) are forced to lie about their own opinions in fear of people jumping on them.

*applaudes*

 

[Soylent Dave]

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.

Except in British Law those offences aren't the same.

Sex with a willing minor over the age of 13 but under the age of 16 isn't rape, and is a lesser offence with a lower sentence; that's the other thing Ken Clarke got confused about (yes, he's meant to be justice secretary so you'd think he knew our laws but hey, he doesn't).

Minors under the age of 13 are legally unable to consent, so any sex with them is rape.

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.

[snip]

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.

Which isn't a problem because teenagers don't stay on the sex offenders register for life, they stay on it until they become adults.
So if you're an 18 year old who just has to sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, then you'll end up on the register - but you're already a bit too creepy for me to want you working with vulnerable kids anyway, so that's probably a good thing.

-

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

If she says 'No', it's rape, period.

 

[Anaklusmos]

And that's exactly what rape is; a highly contentious issue. No one likes to talk about it because it is such an abhorrent crime, but let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

This is what I focused on. If you are 17 year old male, and you have sexual intercourse with a 15 year old consenting female who is NOT under the influence of drugs alcohol or unconscious, you will be charged with 'Unlawful Intercourse with a Minor'. From what I can gather you are not charged with the same sort of offense you would get if you was to actually rape someone.

I don't see how rape could come in different forms. If I was to slit someones throat with a knife I would be charged with murder. If I was to smash a mans head in with a hammer and kill him I would be charged with murder. If I was to force vaginal penetration upon a woman I would be charged with rape. If I was to force a woman to perform oral sex on me I would be charged with rape.

In both murder cases I am ultimately killing someone. In both rape cases I am ultimately forcing someone to perform a sexual act upon me for sexual gratification without consent. I don't see why they should differ when it comes to charges.

 

[KyoraSan]

Murder comes in different flavors and shapes, why can't rape? I don't see how any feminist could be against this.
However...I do want to point out that saying "This rapist should get better treatment then THAT rapist" is exactly like saying "that murderer should get better treatment then that murderer."
It pays to be pessimistic in this situation.

What I'm saying is we shouldn't view this as letting criminals off the hook for lesser crimes, but as making the punishment worse for worse offenders.

I have so much to say on this, but I have neither the time nor the will, as I can't really put those thoughts into coherent, not-crazy words.

 

[Soylent Dave]

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

If she says 'No', it's rape, period.

I think this shows a far more serious misunderstanding of public opinion by Ken Clarke than the statutory rape bit, though.

(although in either case, Tory voters (i.e. Daily Mail readers) will be building a wicker man for him)

 

[mjc0961]

I also agee that men can be raped; it's always bothered me that the dictionary definition of a rapist is: a man who commits rape.

Since when is that that the definition of rapist? Last time I knew, it was a person who commits rape. Gender doesn't matter: women can be rapists too, and yes they can rape either men or women just like men can rape either men or women. And yeah, men get raped too. One thing that drives me nuts whenever a rape discussion comes up is that lots of women start getting super defensive and acting like rape is done only by men and done only to women.

Well let me say this. As a man who could unfortunately become the victim of rape just as much as any other person, I think that politician is absolutely right. Furthermore, I think anyone who disagrees needs to take a step off their soapbox for a minute and look at it logically. There's various degrees of rape charges exactly because not every rape is the same. Statutory rape is not the same as rape in the second degree. That's why they're two separate charges.

So again, as a human who can be raped, I see nothing wrong with that guy's statements and think everyone needs to get off his back.

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.

Not sure if serious...

A 17 year old, who is not yet an adult, having sex with his/her 15 year old girlfriend/boyfriend who is also not yet an adult, should not have his/her life ruined over consensual sex. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money to pursue such "crimes" when there are real predators out there to worry about.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Which isn't a problem because teenagers don't stay on the sex offenders register for life, they stay on it until they become adults.
So if you're an 18 year old who just has to sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, then you'll end up on the register - but you're already a bit too creepy for me to want you working with vulnerable kids anyway, so that's probably a good thing.

Well, i can't speak to British law, but in the US (at least in most states), it is for life. There has been much talk over the past few years of changing it, since there are thousands of guys around the country who can never get a job or a home because they committed the unforgivable crime of getting it on with their girlfriends when they were 16.

 

[Nanaki316]

And that's exactly what rape is; a highly contentious issue. No one likes to talk about it because it is such an abhorrent crime, but let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

You have basically just summed up my feeling on a lot of situations. I have been a victim and what happened to me was the latter. This I would never ever condone anyone doing to anyone.
However, I don't believe that someone who has sex with a minor (consenting) should be charged for rape. It's a completely different thing,
Rape isn't about sex, it's about control, physically hurting and abusing someone.
Consenting sex is just totally totally different. If the older person is aware of the younger persons age though, I do believe there should be perhaps a warning or they should think twice before doing it - but it still isn't rape.

EDIT: Sorry just to clarify, I mean minor as in literally the 15 year old you used in your example.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Slightly disingenuous news article and original post. The real issue is not just over his comments, but over the fact that he is using his views in order to try and justify a change in the law that will basically put most cases of rape down on the level of a burglary or mugging, two years maximum sentence with most out in a year for good behaviour.

His views are essentially correct, and I think there is a great difference between say a forty year old raping an eight year old and two drunken twenty somethings of whom the woman is too drunk to fully consent but then the guy is off his head as well, but what the new laws are aiming to do is something very different.

Of course, the big thing that needs to happen for rape is for the acknowledgement of the rape of men becoming more widespread. It is very possible for men to be raped, even/especially by women, and often it won't get reported, either because the men are too embarassed or because the cops won't believe they could have been raped.

 

[ryo02]

However this is exactly why under English law the 17 year old would not be charged with Rape but an entirely separate crime, namely unlawful sex with a minor (I think)

Statutory Rape. My old housemate went down for that.

I wouldnt call it rape its not really right but its not rape

rape is a terrible crime against someone unwilling and frankly anyone who commited it should be put into a giant slow meat grinder.(assuming they were not falsely accused)

 

[MrA]

Ok, so my girlfriend is underage where I live. I'm only a year older than her and in fact she becomes legal tomorrow! but anyway, she's underage. Now we're on pretty good terms but if she was so inclined she could go to the police, tell them we'd had sex and I would get charged with rape even if the sex was consensual. Why should I get charged the same as someone who pins a non consensual woman down and forcibly rapes her? It's absurd. Rape is a hard topic but as OP said it's not all black and white.

 

[MrA]

However this is exactly why under English law the 17 year old would not be charged with Rape but an entirely separate crime, namely unlawful sex with a minor (I think)

Statutory Rape. My old housemate went down for that.

I wouldnt call it rape its not really right but its not rape

rape is a terrible crime against someone unwilling and frankly anyone who commited it should be put into a giant slow meat grinder.(assuming they were falsey accused)

According to British law, it's rape.

 

[KyoraSan]

Yeah I'm with you on this. I've always found the way many crimes are all pidgeon holed into one senticing structure to be silly and your examples above are good ones. Obviously serious offenses should be dealt with harshly, but the lact of flexibility to those who do relatively minor versions of the offense does irritate me.

Technically tea-bagging counts as rape but I don't see people getting 5 years for that shit.

Actually, it doesn't.

Any unwanted sexual act forced on another is, at least where I'm from, not rape. Not legally, anyway. The legal definition of rape (again where I'm from, and the definition of rape varies VERY widely depending on who you ask), is the force act of ACTUAL sexual intercourse. Meaning it does'nt count as rape unless someone actually fucks someone. Everything else is covered under sexual assault. This is important in the context here, because if where this politician is trying to change the law shares or has a similar definition, he's basically saying "there's different levels of sticking a dick in someone."

 

[razer17]

If there is no concrete line, where does it end? 'But officer, she is 15 in a day/a week/two weeks/a month/a year/four years/eight years.'

You see? There must be a line that is not open for negotiation or people will abuse it. Remember, a lot of people a lot smarter than myself that know a lot more about law and psychology have chosen the age for a reason.

Yes, and psychologists are infallible. For one thing, if it were that easy to decide every country would have the same age of consent. Spanish kids will be able to deal with sex at 13, but Americans can't handle it till they're 18? That doesn't really make much sense.

An arbitrary age doesn't make sense, at all. Going to prison and being put on the sex offenders registrar for life? For having sex with someone who could technically be in your year group in school? I find that awfully distasteful.

There needs to be flexibility. Someone earlier in the thread stated the system in his country, which seems a decent way to go about it, where 14-17 year olds can sleep with each other, and people over 18 can only sleep with people of 16 years and over. As I've said, in a perfect world it would be judged by some form of psychometric test that shows how ready you are to handle sex.

 

[funguy2121]

snip

The children, the children! People love to self-affirm by thinking of the goddamn children. When I was 15 I wanted to fuck everything that moves, and y'know what I've realized since then? We have a lot more in common with women than not.

Lucky for me, I'm no longer attracted to a woman younger than 19 once she opens her mouth. But I don't think a 19-year-old consummating his relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend should even be considered comparable to a 40-year-old getting touchy with a 10-year-old, or a date rapist, or a rape rapist.

So, to all the puritanical moralists out there: if we don't understand the crime, how are we to go about preventing it? Do we really want to view date rape, forcible rape, pedophilia and ephebophilia through the same lense?

Hey, ephebophilia ain't in the DSM-IV. Know why? Because every man on this planet looked with allure upon Hayden Panettiere, even before she turned 18. That doesn't make us weird, it makes us men.

Edited for grammar: my tongue is an asshole

The most humorous reply so far. And it actually makes a damn good point. *applaudes*

Thanks. That serves the need for approval that I have as a comedian (sincerely).

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

I also agee that men can be raped; it's always bothered me that the dictionary definition of a rapist is: a man who commits rape.

Since when is that that the definition of rapist? Last time I knew, it was a person who commits rape.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1259&bih=626&q=define+rapist&rlz=1W1TSEA_en-GB___GB358&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Look at the first result. Trust me, when I say that the Oxford English Dictionary has it's definition of a rapist as "a man who commits rape." I'm well aware that other defintions use the word "person" instead of "man" but I'm just pointing out that there is in fact a definition floating around that only deems men rapists.

It's not right, and I agree with the other parts of your comment. : )

 

[LadyMint]

There's not much for me to say here except that I agree. It is my personal policy to try and take all aspects of life on a case by case basis. That doesn't always happen of course, but generalizing situations tends to villainize people who are not actually villains. Like the teen couple who happen to be a few years apart. I dunno, it just seems to me like people hear the word "rape" and the worst case scenario comes to their mind (a woman being forced on), rather than the legal definition which has much more of a broad definition (a man being forced on, a child being forced on, teenage girls and their older boyfriends, etc.).

 

[madster11]

Dulcinea, your opinion is wrong.

No, i don't need to elaborate. Any reasonable person will go over your posts and see that you have no understanding of human sexuality or general nature, and thus will do that job for me.


Now, OT, everyone - just start using Tasman laws, but with the general 16yo instead of 17.
- Your partner was 15 or older and you're not more than 5 years older
- Your partner was 12 or older and you're not more than 3 years older


As for the US laws of 18 or older, that's a joke.
You can operate 6500lbs+ of steel at speeds of up to 80mph within the law, passing within a few hundred feet of a preschool when you're 16, but apparently cannot decide if you want to have sex with a person.