And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.
]spoiler=For awesomeClaw, spoilered for length]Well actually, by physiological standards, the average age of puberty for males is a two-ish year span between about 13 and 17[footnote]If I'm remembering what my lecturer was saying accurately[/footnote] (with the obvious existence of extreme outliers). So chances are that while you can ejaculate and have developed a sex drive, you are not a physically mature male (and that's not even touching on psychological maturity and the effects that different social conditions can have on that).
And then of course, there is the role of sex within society. Sure, it has recreational use ('rumour' has it that orgasms are rather pleasant), but sexual activity can force the development of emotional bonds that may not have formed from a purely social relationship[footnote]Which can raise the issue of if someone of your age is at a stage of mental development where they truly appreciate the gravity of the situation, and therefore if they are mature enough to make a properly weighted decision.[/footnote], then there is the raging hormones, which can adversely affect judgement[footnote]Which has parallels with the old saying "One is not a good judge of one's own sanity". How can you know you are ready when you can't trust your own state of mind to have rational integrity?[/footnote], and then there is the physical risks involved, which raises two more issues;
1. In the previously mentioned context of rational instability, should someone be permitted to risk the well-being of their future selves in a very permanent and detrimental manner (STDs/STIs) AND
2. Given the combination of social and physical imaturities, is someone of your age (just as an example) capable of fully accepting and realising their responsibility to any child that may be conceived as a result of their hormone-driven actions?
So while there logically would be a handful of people who are both physically, socially and psychologically mature enough to fully grasp sex at your age, there wouldn't be many.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to single you out, but I read your post and it was not only convenient, but also raised an important point that is rarely able to be addressed in a proper context.[/spoiler]
OT: I haven't read the article just yet (bear with me), but from what I've heard, it seems like the 'general idea' is good, but his personal expression and view on the matter is somewhat ... inaccurate (that word will have to do).
EDIT: Okay, just read the article. He sounds like he used the wrong terminology (*cough*date rape*cough*), but otherwise his point is good, but misunderstood. He's just saying that there are different forms of rape, and just because they are called rape doesn't mean they instantly are some heinous abomination against humanity. It's basically a statement against the knee-jerk reaction, and to view a situation as a situation, rather than as its name.
Well, I´m still struggling with the "child" issue. On one hand, if I were a female, such a misstep could easily be corrected with a quick and easy aboriton(Yes, I consider abortions easy, much like squeezing a zit) but I´m not entirely sure that it works on males. But STDs aren´t such a big deal if you use protection, and the same kind of goes with children.
Also, one chooses what one does in school. That effects the well-being of oneself in the future. Plus, mistakes are to be made, and then learned from. "Only burned children fear fire." Ya´know? Also, social conditioning I consider to be a very poor excuse. If everybody around you has gotten laid, and you personally feel pressured into doing the same, well, so what? You´ve proved that you´re real easy to manipulate. Not much else.
But I just found a solution to the child problem! Men can chose a "technical" abortion and have no affiliation with the child what-so-ever! Easy! Why didn´t I think of that before? If people just stopped treating abortions like such a "taboo" subject then we´d never have unwanted children again.
And well, one is not a good judge of ones own sanity, true, but to use hormonal imbalance is kind of weak. Women have an hormonal imbalance once a month. Should we restrict them from making any descisions then? Because their hormones are out of line? They might regret it, you know!
And I prefer to think that the majortiy should not oppress the minority. Just because most people my age are bumbling morons(trust me, I know it better then anyone...) doesn´t mean that relatively mature people like me should have to suffer because of their stupidity, right?
And in response to your first point: Well, no. I´m not a fully mature male. Not going to pretend that I am. But I am sexually mature(although telling this for strangesr online doesn´t feel quite right), and I believe I am mature enough to decide wheter or not to have sex if the situation(or rather, oppurtunity) presents itself. Why should you, or anyone else for that matter, say that I cannot?
Sexual Assault is Sexual Assault. It is based on informed consent.
Additional crimes - such as assault - are added on to the list of charges as necessary. In that case, each case is treated individually already.
That's one thing that's always confused me about the US. If you're drinking you can't consent. But you're still accountable for your actions. Can't go drunk driving and your defense is "What did I know? I was drunk."
It is an interesting, contradictory problem, isn't it? And unfortunately, there's no clear way of determining what the law should be, because while people SHOULD be held accountable for their actions (particularly if they are drunk driving), they are much more susceptible to being *manipulated* or coerced into sex - it's not uncommon to look at sexual assault statistics or cases and find that the perpetrator ensured that the victim consumed alcohol - it's different than outright drugging, but it's not uncommon to hear it. It's socially acceptable for some individuals to have the mindset of, this person doesn't want to have sex with me, give them a few drinks and maybe they'll change their mind (this goes for BOTH genders). So, I understand why the law around drunkenness regarding those two constructs are different and seemingly contradictory.
As far as a solution, I don't know. Law isn't really my specialty, and it's not something I've really researched. But I know that the current consent law exists there for a reason.
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.
Well actually, by physiological standards, the average age of puberty for males is a two-ish year span between about 13 and 17[footnote]If I'm remembering what my lecturer was saying accurately[/footnote] (with the obvious existence of extreme outliers). So chances are that while you can ejaculate and have developed a sex drive, you are not a physically mature male (and that's not even touching on psychological maturity and the effects that different social conditions can have on that).
And then of course, there is the role of sex within society. Sure, it has recreational use ('rumour' has it that orgasms are rather pleasant), but sexual activity can force the development of emotional bonds that may not have formed from a purely social relationship[footnote]Which can raise the issue of if someone of your age is at a stage of mental development where they truly appreciate the gravity of the situation, and therefore if they are mature enough to make a properly weighted decision.[/footnote], then there is the raging hormones, which can adversely affect judgement[footnote]Which has parallels with the old saying "One is not a good judge of one's own sanity". How can you know you are ready when you can't trust your own state of mind to have rational integrity?[/footnote], and then there is the physical risks involved, which raises two more issues;
1. In the previously mentioned context of rational instability, should someone be permitted to risk the well-being of their future selves in a very permanent and detrimental manner (STDs/STIs) AND
2. Given the combination of social and physical imaturities, is someone of your age (just as an example) capable of fully accepting and realising their responsibility to any child that may be conceived as a result of their hormone-driven actions?
So while there logically would be a handful of people who are both physically, socially and psychologically mature enough to fully grasp sex at your age, there wouldn't be many.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to single you out, but I read your post and it was not only convenient, but also raised an important point that is rarely able to be addressed in a proper context.
OT: I haven't read the article just yet (bear with me), but from what I've heard, it seems like the 'general idea' is good, but his personal expression and view on the matter is somewhat ... inaccurate (that word will have to do).
EDIT: Okay, just read the article. He sounds like he used the wrong terminology (*cough*date rape*cough*), but otherwise his point is good, but misunderstood. He's just saying that there are different forms of rape, and just because they are called rape doesn't mean they instantly are some heinous abomination against humanity. It's basically a statement against the knee-jerk reaction, and to view a situation as a situation, rather than as its name.
Well, I´m still struggling with the "child" issue. On one hand, if I were a female, such a misstep could easily be corrected with a quick and easy aboriton(Yes, I consider abortions easy, much like squeezing a zit) but I´m not entirely sure that it works on males. But STDs aren´t such a big deal if you use protection, and the same kind of goes with children.
Okay, I'll do this bit by bit, just to keep it less cluttered.
The thing is, abortion still remains an issue in wider society, meaning that while for you it may be an easy decision, for the woman there may be conflict, psychological distress, and heck, even her peers having an issue with abortion could detrimentally affect her. And then there is the fact that becoming pregnant could cause her to become maternal when she wasn't before, meaning if shoe doesn't keep the child, the harm caused to her mental well being would be greater, or she may just choose not to get an abortion, meaning you would have fathered a child.
And then on top of that there are medical costs, and (I'm not familiar with th procedure) there may be additional risks involved from the abortion itself (do they use a general aneasthetic, is there a risk of damaging her genitals/uterus?)
Plus, mistakes are to be made, and then learned from. "Only burned children fear fire." Ya´know?
I singled this part ut, because it is important. Sure, only burned children fear fire, but you know what, being killed in a fire doesn't teach you anything. A 'permanent' lesson (one with consequences that don't go away) can teach, sure, but it also leaves you with the consequences for the rest of your life. So it'd be like saying that getting your arm chopped off from a chainsaw is a good lesson becuase you won't be careless with cutting machinery again, but you are still missing an arm.
Also, one chooses what one does in school. That effects the well-being of oneself in the future.
And I for one find the situation of senior schooling to be less than ideal. I don't think many people aer qualified to decide the course of their own lives (to such a large degree) when they presumably lack the real world experience necessary to make an informed decision.
Also, social conditioning I consider to be a very poor excuse. If everybody around you has gotten laid, and you personally feel pressured into doing the same, well, so what? You´ve proved that you´re real easy to manipulate. Not much else.
It isn't so much that you are easy to manipulate, but rather that the pressures can be either very intense, or too subtle for you to realise you are being influenced.
But I just found a solution to the child problem! Men can chose a "technical" abortion and have no affiliation with the child what-so-ever! Easy! Why didn´t I think of that before? If people just stopped treating abortions like such a "taboo" subject then we´d never have unwanted children again.
I don't know what a technical abortion is, but either it is the man making the girl get an abortion (which I highly doubt), or it is the man effectively disowning the fetus. In the latter, that's a load of bullshit. Sure, if the woman expressly says that they don't wish you to have any involvement in any children born from your sexual encounter, that's fine. But that needs to be an agreed upon circumstance before-hand, because otherwise you are ignoring the responsibilities inherent to sex, the sexual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la, I can't hear you!"
And well, one is not a good judge of ones own sanity, true, but to use hormonal imbalance is kind of weak. Women have an hormonal imbalance once a month. Should we restrict them from making any descisions then? Because their hormones are out of line? They might regret it, you know!
In the case of a mature female, they are a fully fledged adult, and their hormonal fluctuations are just a part of their identity. With teenagers, the hormones are not 'the norm', it is similar in some respects to intoxication, except for the fact that the body inflicts it upon itself for the purpose of maturation. So hormonal imbalance is a perfectly valid reason in the context of adolescents, because that acts they perform while under hormonal influence can greatly affect the life-course of their fully mature selves (and unlike an adult, their 'fully mature selves' don't exist yet and therefore have no say on the matter (which brings it down to a philosophical view on what qualifies as 'the self').
And I prefer to think that the majortiy should not oppress the minority.
I agree, but this isn't a straight-cut case of oppressing a minority group, this is a case of protecting those unqualified to act as a fully responsible adult from themselves and others (which is the same reason we don't allow babies to smoke, toddlers to drive cars, etc)
Just because most people my age are bumbling morons(trust me, I know it better then anyone...) doesn´t mean that relatively mature people like me should have to suffer because of their stupidity, right?
I agree, I myself am 17 (I know all about the stupidity of our age groups, and trust me, even at my age ther are some very stupid people making very bad decisions), but the law is there to protect the majority of a demographic. Your case is like saying that if there was one 5 year old who could drive safely, then every five year old should be able to get their license. It is a matter of finding a minimum age (in Australia's case, 16) so that those who are early-maturers don't have to wait forever, and the majority of the less mature people aren't going to do something colossally moronic (instead they only do things that are mid-level/minimally moronic).
And in response to your first point: Well, no. I´m not a fully mature male. Not going to pretend that I am. But I am sexually mature(although telling this for strangesr online doesn´t feel quite right), and I believe I am mature enough to decide wheter or not to have sex if the situation(or rather, oppurtunity) presents itself. Why should you, or anyone else for that matter, say that I cannot?
Okay, how's this. If someone your age is mature enough (both mentally and physically) to have sex, then you should also be mature enough to put the well-being of others (in this case, those of your age who are not ready) before yourself (at least for a couple years). And you should also be mature enough to realise that the benefits of sex (pleasure), are far outweighed by the the risks (pregnancy, social exclusion, disease) in the context of understanding that even though you are possibly mature, you cannot know for sure.
So technically, an immature person shouldn't be having sex, and a mature person should realise that it is best for everyone to wait. Either way, young sex (and trust me, 13 is very young) shouldn't be had regardless of your maturity.
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.
Well actually, by physiological standards, the average age of puberty for males is a two-ish year span between about 13 and 17[footnote]If I'm remembering what my lecturer was saying accurately[/footnote] (with the obvious existence of extreme outliers). So chances are that while you can ejaculate and have developed a sex drive, you are not a physically mature male (and that's not even touching on psychological maturity and the effects that different social conditions can have on that).
And then of course, there is the role of sex within society. Sure, it has recreational use ('rumour' has it that orgasms are rather pleasant), but sexual activity can force the development of emotional bonds that may not have formed from a purely social relationship[footnote]Which can raise the issue of if someone of your age is at a stage of mental development where they truly appreciate the gravity of the situation, and therefore if they are mature enough to make a properly weighted decision.[/footnote], then there is the raging hormones, which can adversely affect judgement[footnote]Which has parallels with the old saying "One is not a good judge of one's own sanity". How can you know you are ready when you can't trust your own state of mind to have rational integrity?[/footnote], and then there is the physical risks involved, which raises two more issues;
1. In the previously mentioned context of rational instability, should someone be permitted to risk the well-being of their future selves in a very permanent and detrimental manner (STDs/STIs) AND
2. Given the combination of social and physical imaturities, is someone of your age (just as an example) capable of fully accepting and realising their responsibility to any child that may be conceived as a result of their hormone-driven actions?
So while there logically would be a handful of people who are both physically, socially and psychologically mature enough to fully grasp sex at your age, there wouldn't be many.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to single you out, but I read your post and it was not only convenient, but also raised an important point that is rarely able to be addressed in a proper context.
OT: I haven't read the article just yet (bear with me), but from what I've heard, it seems like the 'general idea' is good, but his personal expression and view on the matter is somewhat ... inaccurate (that word will have to do).
EDIT: Okay, just read the article. He sounds like he used the wrong terminology (*cough*date rape*cough*), but otherwise his point is good, but misunderstood. He's just saying that there are different forms of rape, and just because they are called rape doesn't mean they instantly are some heinous abomination against humanity. It's basically a statement against the knee-jerk reaction, and to view a situation as a situation, rather than as its name.
Well, I´m still struggling with the "child" issue. On one hand, if I were a female, such a misstep could easily be corrected with a quick and easy aboriton(Yes, I consider abortions easy, much like squeezing a zit) but I´m not entirely sure that it works on males. But STDs aren´t such a big deal if you use protection, and the same kind of goes with children.
Okay, I'll do this bit by bit, just to keep it less cluttered.
The thing is, abortion still remains an issue in wider society, meaning that while for you it may be an easy decision, for the woman there may be conflict, psychological distress, and heck, even her peers having an issue with abortion could detrimentally affect her. And then there is the fact that becoming pregnant could cause her to become maternal when she wasn't before, meaning if shoe doesn't keep the child, the harm caused to her mental well being would be greater, or she may just choose not to get an abortion, meaning you would have fathered a child.
And then on top of that there are medical costs, and (I'm not familiar with th procedure) there may be additional risks involved from the abortion itself (do they use a general aneasthetic, is there a risk of damaging her genitals/uterus?)
Plus, mistakes are to be made, and then learned from. "Only burned children fear fire." Ya´know?
I singled this part ut, because it is important. Sure, only burned children fear fire, but you know what, being killed in a fire doesn't teach you anything. A 'permanent' lesson (one with consequences that don't go away) can teach, sure, but it also leaves you with the consequences for the rest of your life. So it'd be like saying that getting your arm chopped off from a chainsaw is a good lesson becuase you won't be careless with cutting machinery again, but you are still missing an arm.
Also, one chooses what one does in school. That effects the well-being of oneself in the future.
And I for one find the situation of senior schooling to be less than ideal. I don't think many people aer qualified to decide the course of their own lives (to such a large degree) when they presumably lack the real world experience necessary to make an informed decision.
Also, social conditioning I consider to be a very poor excuse. If everybody around you has gotten laid, and you personally feel pressured into doing the same, well, so what? You´ve proved that you´re real easy to manipulate. Not much else.
It isn't so much that you are easy to manipulate, but rather that the pressures can be either very intense, or too subtle for you to realise you are being influenced.
But I just found a solution to the child problem! Men can chose a "technical" abortion and have no affiliation with the child what-so-ever! Easy! Why didn´t I think of that before? If people just stopped treating abortions like such a "taboo" subject then we´d never have unwanted children again.
I don't know what a technical abortion is, but either it is the man making the girl get an abortion (which I highly doubt), or it is the man effectively disowning the fetus. In the latter, that's a load of bullshit. Sure, if the woman expressly says that they don't wish you to have any involvement in any children born from your sexual encounter, that's fine. But that needs to be an agreed upon circumstance before-hand, because otherwise you are ignoring the responsibilities inherent to sex, the sexual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "La la la la, I can't hear you!"
And well, one is not a good judge of ones own sanity, true, but to use hormonal imbalance is kind of weak. Women have an hormonal imbalance once a month. Should we restrict them from making any descisions then? Because their hormones are out of line? They might regret it, you know!
In the case of a mature female, they are a fully fledged adult, and their hormonal fluctuations are just a part of their identity. With teenagers, the hormones are not 'the norm', it is similar in some respects to intoxication, except for the fact that the body inflicts it upon itself for the purpose of maturation. So hormonal imbalance is a perfectly valid reason in the context of adolescents, because that acts they perform while under hormonal influence can greatly affect the life-course of their fully mature selves (and unlike an adult, their 'fully mature selves' don't exist yet and therefore have no say on the matter (which brings it down to a philosophical view on what qualifies as 'the self').
And I prefer to think that the majortiy should not oppress the minority.
I agree, but this isn't a straight-cut case of oppressing a minority group, this is a case of protecting those unqualified to act as a fully responsible adult from themselves and others (which is the same reason we don't allow babies to smoke, toddlers to drive cars, etc)
Just because most people my age are bumbling morons(trust me, I know it better then anyone...) doesn´t mean that relatively mature people like me should have to suffer because of their stupidity, right?
I agree, I myself am 17 (I know all about the stupidity of our age groups, and trust me, even at my age ther are some very stupid people making very bad decisions), but the law is there to protect the majority of a demographic. Your case is like saying that if there was one 5 year old who could drive safely, then every five year old should be able to get their license. It is a matter of finding a minimum age (in Australia's case, 16) so that those who are early-maturers don't have to wait forever, and the majority of the less mature people aren't going to do something colossally moronic (instead they only do things that are mid-level/minimally moronic).
And in response to your first point: Well, no. I´m not a fully mature male. Not going to pretend that I am. But I am sexually mature(although telling this for strangesr online doesn´t feel quite right), and I believe I am mature enough to decide wheter or not to have sex if the situation(or rather, oppurtunity) presents itself. Why should you, or anyone else for that matter, say that I cannot?
Okay, how's this. If someone your age is mature enough (both mentally and physically) to have sex, then you should also be mature enough to put the well-being of others (in this case, those of your age who are not ready) before yourself (at least for a couple years). And you should also be mature enough to realise that the benefits of sex (pleasure), are far outweighed by the the risks (pregnancy, social exclusion, disease) in the context of understanding that even though you are possibly mature, you cannot know for sure.
So technically, an immature person shouldn't be having sex, and a mature person should realise that it is best for everyone to wait. Either way, young sex (and trust me, 13 is very young) shouldn't be had regardless of your maturity.
1: Yes, that´s the issue, but that was solved by the technical abortion for males. And no, it isn´t neglecting responsibility. It´s being given the same oppurtunity to get rid of the child that females have. Equality!
2: Kind of. At least with STDs. (Technical abortion solves child issue!). Hm. Well, you got me there. But I still believe in lowering the age of consent.
3: I believe one is ready to have sex the second one is physically ready to have it. You can decide yourself if you are mentally ready, noone else. You seem to disagree, so let´s agree to disagree on this point, ok?
4: Well, I´ve got a possible solution, but it´s basically inpossible. Have a "maturity" license. Only exceptionally mature people can get it, and then they have the right to have sex. But it´s impossible and hard to control. But still, would be kind of cool.
5: This one I disagree with strongly. I don´t put other people´s wellbeing in front of my own. Why should I? That doesn´t mean I´m immature, it means I have a diffrent world-view. Oh, and the risk-reward thing is subjective and therefor not an argument. Although the risks can be lowered by precautions. I don´t throw myself into a pool without checking if there´s water, you know.
I find your insinuation that I cannot make my own descisions in this subject offensive.
I agree to a certain extent. Statutory rape IS different, but it falls closer to child molestation or sex with the mentally handicapped. It's not so much whether or not consent is given, but that they are not in a state of mind to be able to give lawful consent.
As for any other kind of rape? Yes, they are all equally bad. Actually, contrary to what most people think, the vast majority of rapists are not people who hide in bushes waiting for a woman to walk by or stalkers who stake out then kidnap someone. Most rapes are by friends, neighbors, and especially boyfriends and husbands. Of course, this is only accounting for females raped by males, which goes unreported enough as it is due to a negative social stigma attached to the victims, but males raped by males or females is treated as humorous in the media and not a big deal by society, so it often goes completely unreported by and large.
Every single one of these cases, however, is a violation. There is no excuse for it, and there are no apologies sufficient enough.
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.
Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.
Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.
More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.
Well, he was more saying Statutory rape is misleading. Makes me think of that court movie with Mathiew McConnaheigh (no idea how to spell it) and Samual L Jackson.
One of his experts had been charged with statutory rape in the past and everyone was shocked. Then Matt's character points out "What if he was 20, she was 17, and today they are married with 3 kids?"
One of his experts had been charged with statutory rape in the past and everyone was shocked. Then Matt's character points out "What if he was 20, she was 17, and today they are married with 3 kids?"
That doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed that needs to be addressed. There are many, many cases of child abuse that go on for the duration of the child's life, wherein that child goes on to love their abusing parent and seemingly live a happy life. There are too women and men who are beaten and bullied by their spouses and partners who claim to love and even adore their attacker. You can go further and look at rape victims who become pregnant and keep their child.
It's a dangerous minefield of psychology and man made law, rape. I consider myself lucky to have survived with little more than a terrible memory and a hatred for my attacker.
Okie dokie, here's the story: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15089751,00.html
Basically, what the guy was trying to say is that not all forms of rape are the same, and that sentences should be carried out depending on the nature of the crime. I agree.
Unfortunately, people got up in arms about this claim and argued that "rape is rape". I'm sorry but issues in life are very rarely black and white. People need to remove their blinders and just think for a second before turning to outrage whenever someone makes a point about a contentious issue.
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.
I'm sick of politicians having to attach their blinders and lie through their teeth just to appease the populace. "Vivienne Hayes, head of the Women's Resource Centre, said Clarke's comments 'smack not only of ignorance but of outright misogyny.'" Fuck her. She's the ignorant one for believing that rape is rape is rape. And it's people like her that are stopping our Politicians from making intelligent arguments in public; people like her that are making public figures afraid to speak their minds.
Well, I've made my position on the story clear (I think), what about you guys??
TL;DR: Rape is a very bad thing, but people need to realise that there is always lesser forms of a crime, deserving more lenient punishments.
The comment causing outrage was not that statutory rape is not as bad, but that date rape (~when the victim is drugged and the raped, almost always by a friend of the victim), is less serious than other forms of rape. However I do think the media furore has gone too far, now that we know that he got date rape and statutory rape mixed up.
One of his experts had been charged with statutory rape in the past and everyone was shocked. Then Matt's character points out "What if he was 20, she was 17, and today they are married with 3 kids?"
That doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed that needs to be addressed. There are many, many cases of child abuse that go on for the duration of the child's life, wherein that child goes on to love their abusing parent and seemingly live a happy life. There are too women and men who are beaten and bullied by their spouses and partners who claim to love and even adore their attacker. You can go further and look at rape victims who become pregnant and keep their child.
It's a dangerous minefield of psychology and man made law, rape. I consider myself lucky to have survived with little more than a terrible memory and a hatred for my attacker.
I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? I think I understand, but forgive me if my interpretation is inaccurate. Is it that not all legally defined rape has a victim?
That... I'm hesitant to agree with. I see what you are saying and it is true a certain sense. But it is also the can of worms that a certain group of people would like to open. Namely those who see younger people (children) as potential sexual partners.
I believe the law on this does its job. Wait until the person is deemed mentally capable of making that decision to consent before you act. That's all I really wish to say on that issue.
I just think pretty much everything is a case by case issue. While rape is a terrible thing, sometimes I think the topic and issue of rape makes people get into a stupid mindset that sometimes gets out of hand. Im not condoning rape. Im not condoning old men having sex with kids. But Ive been 16 dating an 18 year old. I did not have sex with them, but not because I did not want to. I think I was capable of knowing what I was doing. Ofcourse, I think the whole statutory rape issue applies more to late teen cases than young/pre teens.
Also as for more severe cases, again, some people get blinded by the word rape and jump to asumptions.
To be fair, that more has to do with when there was no actual rape. I would be hard pressed to think of a situation where a violent rape was ok.
Edit: And who is to say when someone is ready? Some people are always incapable. Some younger people are more capable than older people. Technically, from a biological view, we cant be sure whats right for us until our mid twenties.
Why is there even debate over this? The law already provides that there are differing levels of rape. For example, statutory and marital as opposed to, well, regular?
It may seem callous and a cold system to some, but it has to be: the law has no room for pussyfooting about, and if any system in the world needs to be able to map out the complexity of human behaviour, it's the law.
...
To be fair, a thought question: if there is even a niggling of doubt or regret about the actions, what do you think that perhaps says about the consent of the individual the night before? I ask this not to challenge you, but just thinking out loud and your post provided a segue. If there is absolute, enthusiastic consent, how likely is regret to be present?
Bear with me while I think aloud:
Often, there may be regret if a person had sex while under the influence of alcohol. In several US states, an intoxicated person CANNOT consent. So, that would fall under a gray rape area.
Perhaps there is regret over a lack of contraception. That could potentially raise questions about the stipulations of the sexual act - was the use of contraception discussed, or did the act simply happen. Is it possible within that framework to have doubt or even feelings of non-consent?
Or another issue: was there VERBAL consent? Did the participant who regrets the act want to have sex, or did they just get caught up and felt that they COULDN'T say no? Consent relies not on the negative, but on the positive - the active consent of both parties must be given. That means there must be a present of yes, be it verbal or through cooperative non-verbal cues.
I think out loud and posit these ideas mainly to point out that it's not necessarily so easy to just dismiss someone who 'regrets' the day after the sex act happens. Sometimes, things just feel WRONG. You may not realize until after the fact that you didn't actually say YES, but you felt that you couldn't say NO. And these are important situations that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis carefully, and not necessarily outright dismissed.
Not that this will always be the case, necessarily. Sometimes, people just make decisions that they think are right for them in the moment, and end up being bad decisions. But, I think often there is more to tease out from that scenario.
Again, not attacking you - just thinking (typing) aloud.
A plain-looking girl walks into a bar, and spots a hot guy whom she knows would never ordinarily look her way. She chats him up, buys him a few beers, and after a six-pack or two he suddenly views her in a somewhat different light, alcohol having lowered his inhibitions and critical sense. They subsequently go her place and eagerly hit the hay.
The next morning the guy wake up with a bad case of morning after regrets: could've sworn she looked a bit more like Jessica Alba last night, and what will the girlfriend say? So he calls in that he has been raped, and the girl gets arrested and put on trial, for a close scrutiny of whether she's a vile rapist.
That seem reasonable?
I for one don't think so. If you go to town and consume alcohol, then you've knowingly and willingly accepted the risk that your inhibitions and level of critical thinking will be lowered, and that you might end up doing things you'll later regret. And sure, the morning after you might wake up with something looking like it came right out of an H. P. Lovecraft novel, but so long as you are of legal age and mental maturity, and happily consented in your selfinflicted drunken state, then it should be no matter for the law and courts to waste their time on. Our guy will just have to accept that he screwed up, try to mend things with the girlfriend, and get on with his life; Without trying to send anyone to jail for his drunkenness.
And there are plenty of other factors which can undermine some idealistic notion of a "perfect consent" as well besides alcohol. Some ill-motived asshole offering kind words to a girl with trouble on the home front might also get further than he would had she not been in a vulnerable situation, but how are you going to outlaw that? Prohibit people in emotionally fragile situations from making love? Have everyone avoid physical closeness with them due to knowing the risk that the matter will go to court should they later regret?
Ability to have an ordinary modern love life aside, punitive laws are also very poor tools when regulating what falls under the sphere of privacy. Education, social services, and informal societal contempt of wrongdoing is what works there.
One should not be blind to the fact that there is an ideological side to this as well. I'd say there are some conservative puritan undertones at work here in some parts of this movement. When you can no longer get anyone to listen to the whole "pre-marital sex is sinful" crap, then you can always put the fear of god in them by criminalizing ordinary human behaviour and the imperfect missteps it entail. Such considerations undoubtedly lie behind the American state laws against drunken consent as well (I'd hazard a guess that they're found mainly in conservatively slanted states).
Ultimately, adults of legal age and mental maturity are responsible for their own actions and choices, even if those choices are made in situations well outside the perfect Zen state (in this case even a situation they knowingly and willingly put themselves in). Let humans be humans, and let them accept responsibility for and learn from their regrets, rather spinelessly flee them by accusing others.
A plain-looking girl walks into a bar, and spots a hot guy whom she knows would never ordinarily look her way. She chats him up, buys him a few beers, and after a six-pack or two he suddenly views her in a somewhat different light, alcohol having lowered his inhibitions and critical sense. They subsequently go her place and eagerly hit the hay.
The next morning the guy wake up with a bad case of morning after regrets: could've sworn she looked a bit more like Jessica Alba last night, and what will the girlfriend say? So he calls in that he has been raped, and the girl gets arrested and put on trial, for a close scrutiny of whether she's a vile rapist.
That seem reasonable?
I for one don't think so. If you go to town and consume alcohol, then you've knowingly and willingly accepted the risk that your inhibitions and level of critical thinking will be lowered, and that you might end up doing things you'll later regret. And sure, the morning after you might wake up with something looking like it came right out of an H. P. Lovecraft novel, but so long as you are of legal age and mental maturity, and happily consented in your selfinflicted drunken state, then it should be no matter for the law and courts to waste their time on. Our guy will just have to accept that he screwed up, try to mend things with the girlfriend, and get on with his life; Without trying to send anyone to jail for his drunkenness.
And there are plenty of other factors which can undermine some idealistic notion of a "perfect consent" as well besides alcohol. Some ill-motived asshole offering kind words to a girl with trouble on the home front might also get further than he would had she not been in a vulnerable situation, but how are you going to outlaw that? Prohibit people in emotionally fragile situations from making love? Have everyone avoid physical closeness with them due to knowing the risk that the matter will go to court should they later regret?
Ability to have an ordinary modern love life aside, punitive laws are also very poor tools when regulating what falls under the sphere of privacy. Education, social services, and informal societal contempt of wrongdoing is what works there.
One should not be blind to the fact that there is an ideological side to this as well. I'd say there are some conservative puritan undertones at work here in some parts of this movement. When you can no longer get anyone to listen to the whole "pre-marital sex is sinful" crap, then you can always put the fear of god in them by criminalizing ordinary human behaviour and the imperfect missteps it entail. Such considerations undoubtedly lie behind the American state laws against drunken consent as well (I'd hazard a guess that they're found mainly in conservatively slanted states).
Ultimately, adults of legal age and mental maturity are responsible for their own actions and choices, even if those choices are made in situations well outside the perfect Zen state (in this case even a situation they knowingly and willingly put themselves in). Let humans be humans, and let them accept responsibility for and learn from their regrets, rather spinelessly flee them by accusing others.
I totally get what you're saying. But I also understand why this law exists. In your scenario, you presented two adults who, though under the influence of alcohol, 'eagerly' went at it. There is still a gray area in this scenario, absolutely, but I can perhaps see why you make your argument based off of it. And in that context, yeah, the argument does make sense, and I wouldn't necessarily criminalize it, if indeed they both enthusiastically consented. But let's look at a different scenario:
Same guy and girl. She buys him drinks, and he gets WASTED. Completely intoxicated, not just buzzed to the point of feeling slightly impaired but still really into the girl. Slurring his speech, relying on her for support. She gets him in a cab, takes him home. There, she begins kissing him, and he kind of participates, but not enthusiastically, and he is really out of it. He's sluggish, and slow to respond. She proceeds to have sex with him.
That's rape. Because in that scenario, he could not consent, even non-verbally. YET, in our society, we still have this mindset that consent = the absence of no. When really, consent is the explicit or implicit presence of YES. Our society still has the mind set of 'well, they didn't say no, so it wasn't rape.' The consent and alcohol laws exist to protect people who may be intoxicated and then are raped, but don't have the faculties or wits to say no.
This scenario has happened before. A person will take someone home and sleep with that person, despite that person being completely out of it. That person might not put up a struggle, might just 'go with the flow' but they are impaired and cannot stop the other person.
You bring up a good point, someone's drunken yes should have some merit, and it shouldn't be used against a person just because the other regrets the sex. But, I believe consent and alcohol laws were created to protect those people who were raped and then silenced because they were told 'well, yeah you were drunk, but you didn't say no!' That's what I mean by consent, and that's what the law means by consent. We take for granted that silence = consent, and the law combats that.
You're also right in saying, if you drink alcohol, you need to take responsibility over your actions. But the consent law exists not to necessarily protect you from YOUR own actions, but to protect you from OTHERS actions. Not to mention, you assume in this scenario that everyone who is under the influence has *willingly consumed* alcohol. Consent and alcohol laws also exist to protect those individuals who may go to a bar to drink responsibly, and then end up having their drink spiked, or made to be more alcoholic than they intended or anticipated. Yet, you will still find cases where juries are hesitant to convict someone who spikes another person's drink or plies them with alcohol unknowingly because the victim 'put themselves in that situation'.
When it comes to alcohol and consent, there is a fine line between wanting people to accept responsibility for their actions and 'victim blaming.' People should be free to go to a bar and have a few drinks without the fear that someone will prey upon or take advantage of them. That's another reason why these laws exist.
Essentially, the law, while not perfect (many aren't), tries to protect individuals. Often, victims are dismissed because 'they had been drinking,' and that shouldn't be the case.
Same guy and girl. She buys him drinks, and he gets WASTED. Completely intoxicated, not just buzzed to the point of feeling slightly impaired but still really into the girl. Slurring his speech, relying on her for support. She gets him in a cab, takes him home. There, she begins kissing him, and he kind of participates, but not enthusiastically, and he is really out of it. He's sluggish, and slow to respond. She proceeds to have sex with him.
I'd hold that he'd still be responsible for his participation then, unless 1): His mind had completely blacked out, 2): He had no physical control over his body, or 3): He was being physically constrained by her/had - however weakly - signalled his unwillingness to go along with her advances.
Him imbibing the alcohol himself, chatting with the girl, and overall going along with the whole thing like a docile sheep - while conscious and not physically helpless - constitutes an implicit consent. It sure as hell isn't an ideal one, the girl is an asshole for not restraining herself, and he'll presumably have some morning after regrets, but it's nothing that'll meet the legal criteria for conviction of there being no consent beyond any reasonable doubt.
He went along with it at the time, participated however drunkenly, and cannot retroactively change that fact when the next morning he finds out that his bedmate looks like Cthulu's grandmother. He must simply face up to his drunkard mistake, pray his carelessness did not earn him an STD or a child, and otherwise move along with what will eventually be one more horror story to tell the mates (I've heard several from friends male and female who after a particularly festive night out have woken up with "prizes" they didn't really remember picking out; none of them would ever have thought of that as rape, and nor can I).
That's rape. Because in that scenario, he could not consent, even non-verbally. YET, in our society, we still have this mindset that consent = the absence of no. When really, consent is the explicit or implicit presence of YES. Our society still has the mind set of 'well, they didn't say no, so it wasn't rape.' The consent and alcohol laws exist to protect people who may be intoxicated and then are raped, but don't have the faculties or wits to say no.
This scenario has happened before. A person will take someone home and sleep with that person, despite that person being completely out of it. That person might not put up a struggle, might just 'go with the flow' but they are impaired and cannot stop the other person.
If they are truly unconscious or physically unable to signal reluctance, then yes, it's a clear case of rape.
If on the other hand their inhibitions and critical thinking have merely vanished, then it's their own responsibility as adults of legal age and mental maturity.
Only when there can be no reasonable doubt that the former is the case should the law step in and mercilessly punish the offender.
You bring up a good point, someone's drunken yes should have some merit, and it shouldn't be used against a person just because the other regrets the sex. But, I believe consent and alcohol laws were created to protect those people who were raped and then silenced because they were told 'well, yeah you were drunk, but you didn't say no!' That's what I mean by consent, and that's what the law means by consent. We take for granted that silence = consent, and the law combats that.
Considering that rape is generally understood as the perpetrator forcing him/herself upon the victim, I'm not sure that the complete passivity against sexual advances of a conscious person in physical control of their body cannot be assigned some weight towards an implicit consent. At least when there have been prior flirtatious contact between the parties.
It's possible that this law might indeed help combat a few instances of actual rape - where the victim is unconscious or paralysed - but it's much too excessive in de facto criminalizing much of what regularly goes on in the nightlife.
You're also right in saying, if you drink alcohol, you need to take responsibility over your actions. But the consent law exists not to necessarily protect you from YOUR own actions, but to protect you from OTHERS actions.
Part of your own responsibility is how one reacts to the suggestions of others. If somebody suggest they you hit the hay with them, and you drunkenly say yes,
Not to mention, you assume in this scenario that everyone who is under the influence has *willingly consumed* alcohol. Consent and alcohol laws also exist to protect those individuals who may go to a bar to drink responsibly, and then end up having their drink spiked, or made to be more alcoholic than they intended or anticipated. Yet, you will still find cases where juries are hesitant to convict someone who spikes another person's drink or plies them with alcohol unknowingly because the victim 'put themselves in that situation'.
I wouldn't be too hesitant to convict there, as the perpetrator had then taken control of the situation away from an unprepared victim at a very early point.
When it comes to alcohol and consent, there is a fine line between wanting people to accept responsibility for their actions and 'victim blaming.' People should be free to go to a bar and have a few drinks without the fear that someone will prey upon or take advantage of them. That's another reason why these laws exist.
They should however also be free to sex each other up once they've had a few drinks, without worrying that consent will retroactively be withdrawn when morning comes.
Essentially, the law, while not perfect (many aren't), tries to protect individuals. Often, victims are dismissed because 'they had been drinking,' and that shouldn't be the case.
It protects these particular individuals and their interests, while while jeopardizing the legal positions of all the many who frequently and happily engage in drunken sex, having a chilling effect on their ability to live the sexually liberal lifestyle of their choice.
Ultimately, it's all about drawing the unclear line between your own drunken mistakes and the abuse and exploitation of persons who've gone from "drunk" to "helpless". Obviously ideology and how seriously you view sex to be will factor in, but to me the laws a presented here sound too excessive, and slanted towards promoting a particular lifestyle of sobriety, monogamy etc. Though as I haven't read them nor seen how they're practised in case law, I might have no trouble at all with them.
Wether you do it because you are desperate or, more likely, statisically speaking, because you are a violent sadist bastard, it's still just as horrible for the woman involved.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
