Should statutory rape really be called rape?

[Autumnleaf]

I understand that having sex with underage people should have consequences, but calling it rape especially when the young person is almost an adult seems wrong when it was consensual.

 

[Mling]

I don't think it should be. Not by default, anyway. I think it should just be called "unlawful sex with a minor" unless an investigation reveals that the older person was psychologically or emotionally aggressive in some way. In which case it can be called something else.

I came to this conclusion after watching a student of mine claim that she'd been raped by a man about three years older than her. Now in her case, maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. It was certainly "unlawful sex with a minor." But I know that she has a lot of trouble concealing her emotions. I don't know how she would act after being raped...I can think of a dozen different responses: head on her desk, not talking; flying into rages; hiding in the bathroom; telling everybody about it; refusing to talk to anybody; trying to talk to her counselor.... the point is, when she's stressed, she shows it. Not everybody does--I'm not saying that people who are raped would or should always act a certain way. But she would show some sign that something was very wrong.

The day after this 'something' happened, she was chipperly chatting about a cool movie she was going to see later, and a kitten her friend got. She was engaged in class to her usual degree, and was doing her work about as well as she ever does. As soon as she was confronted about hooking up with somebody she shouldn't have, she described it as rape.

She was lying. Regardless of what the law says, she was using a very loaded term to escape responsibility for something that I'd bet money she initiated and enjoyed. Whatever happened, it was something--the 18 year old should not have slept with her. She was not mature enough to fully appreciate what she was doing, and it's possible she regretted it afterward. It was either sleazy of the guy to take advantage of that, or foolish and self-centered of him to not consider it at all. But rape, it was not.

 

[nolongerhome]

I understand that having sex with underage people should have consequences, but calling it rape especially when the young person is almost an adult seems wrong when it was consensual.

Statutory rape is called rape because rape is the word we use to describe non-consensual sex in a legal context.

Someone under the age of consent is not considered able to consent to sex. Therefore the sex is non-consensual. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, it is rape.

Calling it rape simply reflects the legal status of the act.

 

[Mling]

Statutory rape is called rape because rape is the word we use to describe non-consensual sex in a legal context.

Someone under the agent of consent is not considered able to consent to sex. Therefore the sex is non-consensual. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, it is rape.

Calling it rape simply reflects the legal status of the act.

Maybe in a court it does, but not in people's heads.

Rape is a violent act.

Legally?--not always. But the word sounds violent, and it always makes people think of violence. I think that reducing the word "rape" to nothing more than a description of an illegal act--like "petty larceny" or "conspiracy to commit a felony" is sort of flippant.

Rather than stretching one word to cover everything from appalling violence to immature decision-making, I think "rape" should continue to describe physical, chemical, emotional and psychological violence (which is what everybody thinks of when they hear it anyway) and we should use other terms to describe illegal, immature sex.

 

[nolongerhome]

Maybe in a court it does, but not in people's heads.

Rape is a violent act.

Legally?--not always. But the word sounds violent, and it always makes people think of violence. I think that reducing the word "rape" to nothing more than a description of an illegal act--like "petty larceny" or "conspiracy to commit a felony" is sort of flippant.

Rather than stretching one word to cover everything from appalling violence to immature decision-making, I think "rape" should continue to describe physical, chemical, emotional and psychological violence (which is what everybody thinks of when they hear it anyway) and we should use other terms to describe illegal, immature sex.

Why does the meaning in people's heads necessarily trump the meaning before a court?

I don't think the word is necessarily being "stretched". It is actually quite specific, in a legal sense - engaging in sexual acts with a partner who has not given legal consent. I don't see how this is a flippant definition - this is a serious offence! It doesn't carry the same emotional pull as your definition of rape as "physical, chemical, emotional and psychological violence" (and if any definition of the word can be considered "stretched" it is this - basically you are suggesting that all violence is rape, which renders the word largely redundant). It does, however, provide us with the type of definition which could actually be usuable to ensure that we can protect people from being raped and ensure that justice is done in cases of rape. This isn't reducing rape to the satus of "petty larceny" - it actually allows us to consider rape to be considered amongst the most serious of crimes and for it to be dealt with accordingly.

 

[citizenthom]

Rape is a violent act.

Not always, or even a majority of the time. I'd even argue that rape that masquerades as romance or has "partial consent" ends up being the most psychologically damaging, because it's harder for the victim to separate out her experience from healthy sexuality later on.

The problem with statutory rape laws is simple: we now teach women from an early age to cry "rape" or "abuse" any time they are displeased with a man's actions or need a way out. The same problem is why over 70% of domestic abuse claims now turn out to be false. We've gotten to a point where women have equal opportunities and protections in our society; now we need to teach young women to take equal responsibility.

 

[BobW188]

Check your various state statute books and I think you'll find the term has all but disappeared.

 

[david_x]

Maybe in a court it does, but not in people's heads.

Rape is a violent act.

Legally?--not always. But the word sounds violent, and it always makes people think of violence. I think that reducing the word "rape" to nothing more than a description of an illegal act--like "petty larceny" or "conspiracy to commit a felony" is sort of flippant.

Rather than stretching one word to cover everything from appalling violence to immature decision-making, I think "rape" should continue to describe physical, chemical, emotional and psychological violence (which is what everybody thinks of when they hear it anyway) and we should use other terms to describe illegal, immature sex.

"Violent act" Are you stuck in the 20s! Rape is not always violent, the only thing that makes it rape is the lack of consent.

 

[shinbits]

Statutory rape is called rape because rape is the word we use to describe non-consensual sex in a legal context.

Someone under the age of consent is not considered able to consent to sex. Therefore the sex is non-consensual. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, it is rape.

Calling it rape simply reflects the legal status of the act.

But what about to teenagers who have sex? What is that legally refered to as? Double rape?

 

[david_x]

But what about to teenagers who have sex? What is that legally refered to as? Double rape?

It's kids having sex.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I understand that having sex with underage people should have consequences, but calling it rape especially when the young person is almost an adult seems wrong when it was consensual.

Well, it should depend upon the situation. The idea that age alone determines ones ability to consent is bad, though easy to use in law, far easier than any other possibilities. Yet we see how relative when you have countries with age of consent anywhere from 12 to 21, and often times with many different little exceptions. Take Arizona, where if an adult and child are married, there is no possibility of statutory rape (if the child says no, it is still considered full rape). Many states often allow some form of a Romeo and Juliet law, yet you will find that a 14 year old can be just like an adult, tricking another child into sex.

The idea that someone some arbitrary age cannot consent to sex is faulty. Yes, there needs to be more safe guards the younger they are, including at some point saying it is just too risky to allow it at all, but to make that line at 18 or 21 seems far too old. Going 16, 14, 12... there is definitely an emotional response to not allow it because when you consider the average person that age, they are far too immature for something like that. But then again, when you consider the average 18 year old, they are still far too immature for sex.

Funny enough, in a few states, having sex with a minor of 15 is illegal if you know they are only 15, but if you don't, then it is legal.


Of course, if you just keep sex for marriage, then the only question is how young we should allow marriage. For some reason, the 25 year old wanting to marry a 14 year old sounds far more like a loving relationship than the 25 year old who only wants to have sex with the 14 year old and not marry them. In the second case, I would almost guarantee is will be abusive, at least in the long term.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It's kids having sex.

Unless it is double rape.

Kids have been charged with raping each other before. Of course, worse is when they can legally consent to sex, but when they record it, they are charged with producing child inappropriate contentography.

 

[nolongerhome]

But what about to teenagers who have sex? What is that legally refered to as? Double rape?

I'm assuming you were implying that the "to teenagers" means two people who are both under the age of consent?

It depends on the legal jurisdiction and the exact circumstances as to how that is handled. If both parties "consent" (that is, both are willing participants even though neither can legally consent), I'm unaware of a specific legal term. If one of the minors does not "consent" (that is, they are forced to have sex against their will by the other party), that would clearly be classified as rape.

 

[marlowe007]

Let's hang on to common-sense here. 98% of all outraged parents looking to lynch the guy who's had intercourse with their teenage daughters are going to wail and moan like you literally took advantage of an infant in swaddling clothes. Understandable, if unrealistic. But unless that girl was forcibly raped, she was one knowing/willing half of a two-person tango which cannot be danced solo.

Statch rape may not be the most glamourous of crimes, I'll admit, but it's often the most bogus of crimes. The more it's pompously moralised into an act of loathsome evil, the more power we inevitably end up ceding to women - and don't they have more than enough power as it is right now?

 

[Mling]

Why does the meaning in people's heads necessarily trump the meaning before a court?

It doesn't necessarily. In this case, though, personally, I don't think that the perception of "rape" being inherently violent is a bad thing. I wouldn't want to lose that perception.

I don't think the word is necessarily being "stretched". It is actually quite specific, in a legal sense - engaging in sexual acts with a partner who has not given legal consent.

a situation that could come about through an attack by 5 armed people, dragging another into an isolated area and stifling screams by physical force, or could describe a simple miscommunication between somebody who is shy and somebody who is thoughtless. That's where I see the stretch. It's specific in a legal sense, yes, but not in the real world. That's what I don't like. Whatever a word means in the court, if people can't get a clear image of what it means in real life, it stops meaning anything. Language exists only in people's heads. Official definitions can only codify what already exists, and I do not want to see the meaning of this word lost, except by by a change in the real world that renders it useless and unnecessary.

I don't see how this is a flippant definition - this is a serious offence!

Yes it is. I'm not saying otherwise. Just that, in certain, borderline situations, it could be called something else.

It doesn't carry the same emotional pull as your definition of rape as "physical, chemical, emotional and psychological violence" (and if any definition of the word can be considered "stretched" it is this - basically you are suggesting that all violence is rape, which renders the word largely redundant).

I assumed the sex part was understood. I meant non-consentual sex committed by "physical, chemical, emotional and psychological violence."

 

[Mling]

Rape is a violent act.

Not always, or even a majority of the time.

That's the point I was making:

Maybe in a court it does, but not in people's heads.

Rape is a violent act.

Legally?--not always.

I'd even argue that rape that masquerades as romance or has "partial consent" ends up being the most psychologically damaging, because it's harder for the victim to separate out her experience from healthy sexuality later on.

I agree--that's why I included psychological violence in my original description. I think, by default, if an adult has sex with a minor, that crime should be considered "unlawful sex with a minor" or something comparable. Then counselers should investigate if there was coersion--psychological violence--involved.

 

[wanderingone]

I understand that having sex with underage people should have consequences, but calling it rape especially when the young person is almost an adult seems wrong when it was consensual.

Actually it's not usually called that in legal terms.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I agree--that's why I included psychological violence in my original description. I think, by default, if an adult has sex with a minor, that crime should be considered "unlawful sex with a minor" or something comparable. Then counselers should investigate if there was coersion--psychological violence--involved.

Assuming there wasn't, what should the punishment be? And lets says a 20 year old is caught having sex with a 40 year old, why not investigate there?

So, which is worse...?
a 13 year old with a 20 year old, no coercion, or a 20 year old with a 40 year old, some coercion (nothing that is outright illegal though)?

 

[Mling]

Assuming there wasn't, what should the punishment be? And lets says a 20 year old is caught having sex with a 40 year old, why not investigate there?

Because 20 year olds are in a life stage where they are being trusted with their own decision-making. 20 year olds are not children.

edit: forgot a question. What is the consequence now? I'm not saying change the law--just the name of the crime.

So, which is worse...?
a 13 year old with a 20 year old, no coercion, or a 20 year old with a 40 year old, some coercion (nothing that is outright illegal though)?

Hard to say. Personally, I think that it wouldn't be an altogether bad thing, for an adult and a child to have a romantic- and sexual-mentoring relationship, but...it's so unlikely that that could happen in a healthy way in the Western world that it's not really worth considering except as a hypothetical. And I don't think a 20 year old would be a great choice for the mentor role anyway, unless they were insanely mature (I'd go for somebody who's emotionally mature, mid-30s to 40's, but again, I don't think this could actually play out in a healthy way, in most existing societies.)

Outside of that situation, though, I'd say the 13/20 relationship is worse, for the simple reason that 13 year olds are usually really underprepared to be making major life decisions. There are a few exceptions, and I'm prepared to make exceptions for them, but across the board, 13 year olds should not be having sex, and 20 year olds should know better than to put them in that situation. Since a romantic relationship involving a 20 year old will often include sex, the simple existence of that relationship could easily be coercive to a 13 year old who's eager to have a 'real' relationship and prove their maturity.

A 20 year old, again, is in a phase of life where they're making most of their own decisions (except maybe a small number of really important ones), and they have better social and problem-solving skills. Or at least, they've had more opportunities to develop them. If they're making a bad decision...that's sort of what being 20 is for. If they're being pushed into a bad decision, the person pushing them is scum, but not all of human interaction can be regulated. I wish people wouldn't do that, but I wouldn't want to live in a society were any and all interactions were subject to official investigation to make sure that everybody was perfect.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Because 20 year olds are in a life stage where they are being trusted with their own decision-making. 20 year olds are not children.

Unless you live in Mississippi, in which case you don't reach the age of majority till 21. But while yes, in most states a 20 year old is considered an adult, that is using arbitrary age lines. Actual neuroscience shows us that until the mid/late 20's, the prefrontal cortex, the center of judgment (well, that is over simplified, but lets skip a physiological psychology lecture on this), isn't fully developed. Thus, while they are clearly far more immature than those half their age, this doesn't mean that the relationship is still not abusive, and thus does not deserve investigation. It only means there is a lower chance of this.

Hard to say. Personally, I think that it wouldn't be an altogether bad thing, for an adult and a child to have a romantic- and sexual-mentoring relationship, but...it's so unlikely that that could happen in a healthy way in the Western world that it's not really worth considering except as a hypothetical.

I have only heard of one day modern case of such, and that wasn't even in the US. Of course, even if such a relationship could happen and be healthy, the current set up of laws would force it to quickly become unhealthy.

And I don't think a 20 year old would be a great choice for the mentor role anyway, unless they were insanely mature (I'd go for somebody who's emotionally mature, mid-30s to 40's, but again, I don't think this could actually play out in a healthy way, in most existing societies.)

People generally are more accepting the closer in age the relationship is. I knew a 18/14 relationship that people were ok with (it was going on for 2 years before the guy turned 18), though they did call him a cradle robber from time to time. College killed that relationship.

Outside of that situation, though, I'd say the 13/20 relationship is worse, for the simple reason that 13 year olds are usually really underprepared to be making major life decisions.

Oh, of course they are underprepared. But is that biologically due to age, or is that sociologically due to our society?

There are a few exceptions, and I'm prepared to make exceptions for them, but across the board, 13 year olds should not be having sex, and 20 year olds should know better than to put them in that situation. Since a romantic relationship involving a 20 year old will often include sex, the simple existence of that relationship could easily be coercive to a 13 year old who's eager to have a 'real' relationship and prove their maturity.

So if we were instead dealing with two people who fully believed in no sex before marriage, and actually had enough self control in that realm... wait a second, I'm talking about teenagers/young adults here. Merely fitting those two criteria would already make them exceptional exceptions.

A 20 year old, again, is in a phase of life where they're making most of their own decisions (except maybe a small number of really important ones), and they have better social and problem-solving skills. Or at least, they've had more opportunities to develop them. If they're making a bad decision...that's sort of what being 20 is for. If they're being pushed into a bad decision, the person pushing them is scum, but not all of human interaction can be regulated. I wish people wouldn't do that, but I wouldn't want to live in a society were any and all interactions were subject to official investigation to make sure that everybody was perfect.

Just imagine the paperwork involved...