This is far too close to postmodernist bullshit for my liking.
No, it's not an arbitrary line, though the exact placement of where the line should be is debatable. Country A has an age of consent of 16, Country B has an age of consent of 12. We can all probably agree that age-of-consent arranged marriages in Country B are wrong and can have something approaching a debate on Country A.
Obviously a girl is not "raped" when she is 17 and 364 days and 23 hours and 59 minutes old, and then 1 minute later she is magically able to engage in BDSM
You may not like it, but that's exactly what the law says. With Romeo and Juliet and other exceptions, of course, but that's the law.
Statutory Rape is NOT the equivalent to a violent rape, you're right. That's why states and jurisdictions typically have lighter sentencing with statutory rape -- because you have to take each case on a case-by-case basis. 22 year old with a 15 year old out in bumfuck, nowhere is a little bit less abnormal and gross than a 35 year old with a 14 year old in Boston.
There's also additional charges that make the underlying crime worse. Guy I grew up with had a relationship with a 14 year old when he was somewhere around 20. In the grand scheme of things probably a statutory rape charge and probation if that was it - except for the fact he drugged her and plied her with porn and essentially held her hostage in his house.
It's the extra circumstances that landed him in jail for a decade and on the sex offender list for life.
Statutory rape is a serious charge and can end up with you on a registry, but yeah I think most people can agree it's not always a heinous thing. But it's still a crime, because we agree as a society that individuals are largely incapable of making those sorts of decisions before the age of 18. Or 16. I hope not 14. Certainly not 12.
No, it's not an arbitrary line, though the exact placement of where the line should be is debatable.
The point is that nobody knows or can really agree and the age limit is generally 14 to 16, with a few outliers below 14 and a few setting it up at 18. I happen to live in California, one of the few places in the world where it was set at 18, because back when it was set in the 1920s, California was very socially conservative and banned all oral sex, even from adults and married couples until the 1970s.
You may not like it, but that's exactly what the law says.
The point is that the rationale for the law and effect of the law are absurd. "That's the law" is a circular argument. Not all laws are good, some are nonsense. Instead, the law should be set in a more graduated way, where the crimes and punishments start out low and increase as the age drops.
Statutory Rape is NOT the equivalent to a violent rape, you're right.
My only point here is not do debate whether it SHOULD be a crime, but instead simply that it is not rape. You can call it any number of other names, like assault, or unlawful sex, or whatever, but reserve "rape" for the actual historical meaning of the word, which requires the use of force (or incapacitating drugs).
This is far too close to postmodernist bullshit for my liking.
No, it's not an arbitrary line, though the exact placement of where the line should be is debatable. Country A has an age of consent of 16, Country B has an age of consent of 12. We can all probably agree that age-of-consent arranged marriages in Country B are wrong and can have something approaching a debate on Country A.
You may not like it, but that's exactly what the law says. With Romeo and Juliet and other exceptions, of course, but that's the law.
Statutory Rape is NOT the equivalent to a violent rape, you're right. That's why states and jurisdictions typically have lighter sentencing with statutory rape -- because you have to take each case on a case-by-case basis. 22 year old with a 15 year old out in bumfuck, nowhere is a little bit less abnormal and gross than a 35 year old with a 14 year old in Boston.
There's also additional charges that make the underlying crime worse. Guy I grew up with had a relationship with a 14 year old when he was somewhere around 20. In the grand scheme of things probably a statutory rape charge and probation if that was it - except for the fact he drugged her and plied her with porn and essentially held her hostage in his house.
It's the extra circumstances that landed him in jail for a decade and on the sex offender list for life.
Statutory rape is a serious charge and can end up with you on a registry, but yeah I think most people can agree it's not always a heinous thing. But it's still a crime, because we agree as a society that individuals are largely incapable of making those sorts of decisions before the age of 18. Or 16. I hope not 14. Certainly not 12.
The line may be fuzzy, but it certainly exists.
The point is that nobody knows or can really agree and the age limit is generally 14 to 16, with a few outliers below 14 and a few setting it up at 18. I happen to live in California, one of the few places in the world where it was set at 18, because back when it was set in the 1920s, California was very socially conservative and banned all oral sex, even from adults and married couples until the 1970s.
The point is that the rationale for the law and effect of the law are absurd. "That's the law" is a circular argument. Not all laws are good, some are nonsense. Instead, the law should be set in a more graduated way, where the crimes and punishments start out low and increase as the age drops.
"statutory rape" isn't rape, it's a legal fiction. That's why California, for example, doesn't call it "statutory rape", it calls the crime "unlawful sex" which is more accurate.
My only point here is not do debate whether it SHOULD be a crime, but instead simply that it is not rape. You can call it any number of other names, like assault, or unlawful sex, or whatever, but reserve "rape" for the actual historical meaning of the word, which requires the use of force (or incapacitating drugs).