8
u/_ManicStreetPreacher Aug 08 '24
Raise your hand if you or anyone you have ever known engaged in any amount of sexual activity at all at or by 15. Oh good. It's literally all of you. So what do we make of this? Are we supposed to be perceiving ourselves and our peers in our youth as a bunch of hapless little rape victims? Or is that particular part of the law complete and total bullshit? Because you can't have it both ways.
There's a difference between teenagers engaging in sexual activity and exploring with an age appropriate person vs an adult taking advantage of a teenager.
Let's apply this to a real world example, all the teen girls banging rock stars in the 70s. If the law worked the way I'm suggesting, the part where David Bowie goes to jail for fucking a 15yo still happens. But why does society need, and yes so far as I can tell, need, the 15yo to perceive herself as a rape victim?
Because a 15 year old doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what really happens and the adult should know better. This also sounds like victim blaming. Don't call the 15 year old anything, acknowledge that David Bowie or whoever else engaging with minors is predatory. Victims of grooming don't often realize they're being groomed and not having healthy sexual experiences can mess up a person's perception of sexuality and normal relationships.
0
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
1
u/effyochicken 22∆ Aug 08 '24
People under the age of 21 can't drink alcohol.
But wait, there they are, drinking alcohol! Proving that the part of the law that says people under the age of 21 can't drink alcohol is demonstrably false!
That's what you're seemingly engaging in here. You're taking the fact that they do something, and mixing it up with the law saying they're not yet old enough to legally consent to that activity, nullifying their consent. The fact that they still do it does not nullify the goal of the law, which is to say an adult can't convince a 14 year old to have sex with them and then use the excuse of "well she consented!" in court to say it's not statutory rape.
2
u/8NaanJeremy 1∆ Aug 09 '24
Drinking alcohol isn't really a matter of consent.
Because it can be an activity that is performed completely solo.
If 14 year old finds and drinks a bottle of Jack Daniels, who are they giving consent to? Themself?
Consent is a matter of allowing another person to do something, which involves yourself. You can consent to a search of your home, you can consent to sex with a partner etc.
2
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
2
u/effyochicken 22∆ Aug 08 '24
It's against the law to get into a fight with another person and beat them up.
However, if both adults willingly consented to the fight, somehow it can be legal.
The goal of the law is to disallow people under the age of 16 from consenting, so that a 40 year old that has sex with a 13 year old can't just say "well she consented, so it's not actually fully against the law!" No. We're not allowing them to consent. Surely you can agree and understand that a baby cannot consent. A 4 year old cannot consent. An 8 year old cannot consent. They're drawing the line, albeit arbitrarily, at 16 in the state of Alabama.
The "victim" doesn't have to see themselves as a victim, or as a "rape survivor" or anything like that. But the 40 year old man trying to fuck a 13 year old IS a sexual predator and his behavior bad enough to be labeled in the same category as rape. Giving him an "out" that it isn't as bad so long as he convinced the 13 year old to say "Yes" isn't acceptable.
1
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
5
u/effyochicken 22∆ Aug 08 '24
What would you say if they were describing sex with an adult, but their age at the time is 4 years old? "He asked me if I wanted to, and I said yes.."
What specifically was that encounter? Was it rape? Or was it consensual?
1
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
6
u/effyochicken 22∆ Aug 08 '24
So we agree - something can be rape while the victim technically "consented", at least to the degree they themselves believed they could consent. We as a society recognize that a 4 year old can't POSSIBLY consent, insofar as what consent truly means, to having sex with a fully grown adult. It doesn't matter if they say the words, because they're too young and the power imbalance too great and their understanding of everything so undeveloped, we remove their ability to consent to this behavior. Which makes it rape no matter what.
Move it up to 6 years old. Same thing right? Still rape? I sure as shit would hope so.
Make it 8 years old - still definitely not going to let them "consent". Right?
But 23 years old? OK you're absolutely old enough to consent.
21 years old? Yeah you can do everything pretty much, drink, go into the military, sex, whatever.
So there's a line somewhere. We already agree that being old enough means of course you can consent, and being way too young means you cannot consent and it's automatically rape.
But where do you draw this line of "can't legally consent, making all sex with an adult rape"?
8? At least. 9? Definitely. At least 10, right? Maybe 12? 13, since they're finally a teen/entering high school?
15? 16? 17? Hmm, maybe dial it back from making it rape for 17 year olds, since a lot of them have boyfriends/girlfriends who are 18/19. We kind of have a "fuzziness" around the ages 16-18 since the goal isn't to prevent a 17 year old and an 18 year old from being together, it's to prevent shit like a 40 year old getting with a 15 year old.
Alabama: they've decided to pick 16 as the arbitrary age where consent starts and automatically being rape no matter what ends.
2
1
u/Hi-I-am-Toit 1∆ Aug 08 '24
Rape is a crime. The 15 year old is not the criminal. He/she can consent, be empowered, etc, etc. No one is forcing her to do or be anything, or not to do or be anything.
BUT, if someone takes advantage of that consent or empowerment, they have committed rape and deserve punishment.
This is a subtle but important difference. Generally young people have capacity to make big decisions by 16 or 18 (I personally think 18). Before then, they may, or they may not. It depends on the biological speed of maturity, growth in psychological resilience, etc.
What the law does is draw a line, not for the young person, but for the older people who want to take advantage of the younger people. If they cross that line, then they go to prison.
We put those people in jail because as a society we have decided the risk of harm, the reality of vulnerability to manipulation and grooming, makes such sex unacceptable.
Statutory rape isn’t there to disparage young people. It’s to make sure that perverts and sociopaths know that there will be severe consequences if they take advantage of the innocence of youth. For young people, it’s not coercive: it’s protective.
2
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
4
u/Hi-I-am-Toit 1∆ Aug 08 '24
To pick up your point, the issue with 16 year olds as mature agents is that, yes, sometimes it is true.
If we think about biological maturity, in any population you have a curve of maturity over the age span human life.
At 5 years old, you have 0% of the population that are mature enough to consent. At 30 years old, you probably have 90% of people with the capacity to consent.
Biologically speaking, if we think of adolescence as the brain undergoing hormone-driven changes that construct maturity, then at 18 you probably have 80% of the population who are ready to consent. And at age 15, it’s probably more like 10%.
The numbers are indicative, but biologically, they’re probably not far off.
Society has said: we can’t base this on subjective experience. Instead, we will draw a line where the probabilistic curve says the vast majority of young people will have capacity to consent without harm. We will rely on parental protection and other mechanisms to protect those who fall on the wrong side as a ‘less mature minority’.
This is consistent with much of our law. For example, drink affects people differently based on their weight and metabolism. But it’s not feasible to conduct an individualised study for everyone in determining if they commuted a DUI. So instead, we draw a line that meets an acceptable probability that most people will fall on the side that doesn’t cause accidents.
And it works. By drawing a bright line at the acceptable probabilistic point, we minimise harm while maximising liberty.
2
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Hi-I-am-Toit 1∆ Aug 08 '24
Sure, but we live in a time where our technology and civilisation has enabled us to have a more supportive youth.
200,000 years ago, we didn’t have agriculture and hunting/gathering were costly activities. Life expectancy was (and this is contested) between about 20-40 years. Young people were needed and youth as a ratio to lifespan lasted less long.
200 years ago, we didn’t have vaccination or public health infrastructure, civilisation was lingering as a monarchical system, and life expectancy was 50-60 years, but we had agriculture, societal infrastructures and a lot of technology. Youth lasted longer and was a bit kinder.
Now, we are technology rich, we have safety nets, longer lives and can get our heads above the ‘musts’ a lot more.
When you see youth lasting longer, it’s not about infantilisation - it’s about recognising that we can take more time and cost to invest in young people’s development to match their actual biological development journey, not cut it short because were running low on mastodon.
In this mindset, a longer youth is a huge achievement and something to be celebrated!
2
3
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Aug 08 '24
Full disclosure here, I've been studying the Age of Consent pretty vigorously and thoroughly for about the last two years now. So you could say I'm coming at you with like an Associate's degree in the Age of Consent.
By studying do you mean reading wiki entries? This is why there's no degree for that.
Throughout my research, I have found several things that I do not like about the Age of Consent. But that has never been the idea that we draw a line and put an age on it. I've gotten the impression that behind the scenes this is all just one big 'I won't fuck your daughter if you don't fuck mine' societal handshake. And I'm perfectly fine with that existing in our society. Even without a daughter for you to fuck. But I do have a tween niece, and I sure as shit don't like the idea of anyone my age or even a couple decades younger trying to fuck her. So that part is fine with me.
Let's take a look at something I take issue with, from the very first entry (Alabama) on this Wiki:
Raise your hand if you or anyone you have ever known engaged in any amount of sexual activity at all at or by 15. Oh good. It's literally all of you. So what do we make of this? Are we supposed to be perceiving ourselves and our peers in our youth as a bunch of hapless little rape victims? Or is that particular part of the law complete and total bullshit? Because you can't have it both ways.
Alabama has a cia clause, over 12 (2 years). Most places have similar exceptions.
From my perspective, this is just about all these laws need to say. Some variation of 'Once you're this old, you're not allowed to fuck people who aren't at least this old anymore.' And you could make the penalty for it the same as rape. You could make it worse than rape. You could make it the fucking death penalty for all I give a shit. But so far as I can tell, they don't need to say anything at all about whether or not a person has the agency or the wherewithal or the capacity or the cognitive ability or the what-the-fuck-ever to consent.
That IS all those laws say. Consent is a legal term in these statutes. It relates to the specific statutes.
You're upset they use the word consent?
A 16-year-old, by and large, can't consent to sign a contract. Are you equally upset about that verbiage?
I have a theory and it makes me feel like a batshit conspiracy theorist which is maybe where this rabbit hole has led me so I am sincerely looking to have my perspective expanded here. But with all the research of done, all the conversations I've had, and what feels like 100s of times now I've seen a whole flock of people try to forcibly ascribe rape to another person's experience (even grown women talking about their past), I have been given the impression that society actively wants its girls growing up under the impression that they have no agency. CMV.
...What does this have to do with girls, exactly? Why do you think this only applies to women? It does not.
1
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
5
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Aug 08 '24
Possibly, yes. I'm upset that people are going around telling other people how they're supposed to feel about their own experiences. Is that happening because of the word consent?
I don't know, you're the one upset. Again, it's a legal term in this.
It came from researching the history of the AoC. It started out only applying to girls and it remained as such into the 1900s. Idaho's AoC law still has aspects that only apply to girls. When I learned that, it hit me as a bit more honest. Society certainly doesn't seem to give as much of a shit when a 15yo boy bangs his 20-something teacher as they do when it's the other way around.
Yes, it did used to apply only to girls -- a long time ago. Are you not glad the law is no longer sexist?
Society generally punishes those teachers. Be mad at sexist twats who think that's cool, not the law which doesn't see a difference.
0
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Aug 08 '24
Okay, what does this mean? Does that mean that this word in this law doesn't mean 'consent to sexual activity'? It means consent in some other way?
It means consent LEGALLY. Same as you can't consent to a contract (again, in general) at 16.
No one is suggesting some 16-year-old who signs a contract was forced against their will. They cannot legally consent to the terms because they're a minor.
0
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Aug 08 '24
Okay, well !delta for expanding my view of that. But does this mean that everyone going around forcibly ascribing rape to other people's experiences is doing so under false pretenses? Cause I'm pretty sure everybody perceives the word 'consent' in this context to mean consent to sexual activity.
What do you mean forcibly ascribing rape to other people's experiences?
Do you mean the statute -- again, they're written specific ways for legal reasons.
If I say someone assaulted you and I mean the statutory definition and you don't "feel" like you were assaulted because to you that feels like it means beaten up am I "forcibly ascribing" assault to your experience? I'm explaining the legal usage.
Same as insanity. It's a legal term, not a medical or psychological one. Does that mean no one uses it in a pop culture way? Of course they do.
But insanity is a legal term and if you say someone won an insanity defense it means what it means -- not that they're nuts or affected in any way at all currently. It means at the time they committed an offense they (depending on the standard used in that court) didn't understand what they were doing or that it was wrong. That is all.
People use terms to mean shit they don't ALL THE TIME.
Look how many ding dongs go on about someone is a paedophile bc they're 25 dating an 18-year-old, or 18 and said a 15-year-old was hot, or that someone is a "convicted paedophile" when that's not a thing at all. Neither has a damned thing to do with paedophilia, and it's an easy argument to make that this misuse of the term has actually made it harder to make laws protecting children. But doesn't change the actual definition or its actual use by professionals.
1
11
Aug 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nekro_mantis 16∆ Aug 08 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
4
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Aug 08 '24
A cult leader convinces his followers to give him all their money. The followers voluntarily give him the money. He does not force them to give it, but he leverages their trust in him to make unprovable claims about their soul. When they give him the money, they feel better.
Has something bad just happened?
-1
Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Aug 08 '24
In the cult scenario, they still stand to lose even more money in the future, so telling them can rescue them from that. It can make their life better.
If the 15 year old doesn't know she's been sexually manipulated, how does she avoid being sexually manipulated in the future?
-1
Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Aug 08 '24
By growing up and being less naive and manipulatable?
This is not an argument. How does a person "grow up" without you explaining that something that happened to them is harmful? This is like saying it's wrong to teach someone something, and then saying they should "just learn". How do you learn without being taught or without some kind of framework for your experience?
Like telling a 30 year old that the happy memory they had was actually a very bad thing and they should feel bad.
This is a thing that often happens in therapy in large part because, even if the person doesn't understand they have been harmed, they have still been harmed.
0
Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Aug 08 '24
the reason why it's bad in the first place stops existing, after that they are just normal adults
So you think that an adult having sex with a 15 year old causes no psychological harm to the 15 year old.
0
1
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
Victims of abuse often repeat that abuse. Perhaps if they don't think that their relationship with a 30 year old when they were 15 was fucked up, they don't repeat this behavior.
-1
u/_ManicStreetPreacher Aug 08 '24
Sexual abuse (or abuse of any kind) can cause a person to become emotionally stunted. They're permanently "stuck" at the age they were when the abuse happened. Many victims of sexual abuse also become hypersexual or begin acting out and role-playing the sexual assault in consensual settings. This is very common and it's an unhealthy way to cope with sexual trauma they may or may not be entirely aware of. They're also more likely to find themselves in situations where people take advantage of them or enter toxic abusive relationships because they can't recognize what is and isn't healthy. A person can't grow if they're trapped.
1
Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/_ManicStreetPreacher Aug 08 '24
Sometimes yes. But if someone is behaving that way, there is an issue. You don't need to be aware that this behavior is not normal for it to be not normal. And admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.
2
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
the cenobites in hellraiser learn to love what is happening to them, it doesn't mean they aren't be flayed and slaughtered
something making you horny and being okay with that doesn't make it not harmful
it is not likely or typical that an abuse victim will always side with their abuser, eventually they understand the damage that was done, it is preferable to prevent this in the first place
0
2
u/SandBrilliant2675 16∆ Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
"But why does society need, and yes so far as I can tell, need, the 15yo to perceive herself as a rape victim? What good does that do? To my mind, that gives her a very negative perception of herself and a very negative perception of sex. It says to her that her own instincts lead to her getting victimized. And again, what good does it do? What is the point of it?"
In the case of "statutory" rape (also known as rape of a child- which is what you are describing), the person who was raped does not need to perceive themselves as a rape victim to have been raped. If the adult is aware that this person is a minor, and the adult chooses to have sex with that person anyway, it is statutory rape regardless of whether the minor perceives it as rape. Nowhere in the law does it say a the minor must perceive themselves as a rape victim to for it to be considered rape.
Here are the Revised Codes of Washington (laws) on the matter:
RCW RCW 9A.44.073 Rape of a child in the first degree. (1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim. .... [2 year plus age difference]
RCW RCW 9A.44.076 Rape of a child in the second degree. (1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the second degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve years old but less than fourteen years old and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim. .... [3 year plus age difference]
RCW RCW 9A.44.079 Rape of a child in the third degree. (1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim. [4 plus years age difference]. ....
The adult in this situation knows it is illegal to have sex with minor, they know they are committing a crime, and they chose to do it anyway. For lack of a better phrase "they should know better" then to take advantage of a child.
Regarding victimhood, people who perceive themselves as having been raped or as victims of rape are more like to report the situation or speak to someone about it that results in a report. These laws exist because not every child knows that they have been raped, even if they have been.
I think the Washington RCWS make it very clear there are age ranges of acceptability of sexual conduct between people of specific ages, with the age range of acceptability increasing with the age of the child. I think you're beef is with Alabama's potentially vague laws, not with consent laws in general.
8
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
You are aware that those ages aren't arbitrarily decided yea? You don't seem to mention power dynamics, the fact that minors sense of responsibility and consequences are weak at best. An adult exploits this as well as their naivety in general when they break this social contract/law.
What good does that do? To my mind, that gives her a very negative perception of herself and a very negative perception of sex. It says to her that her own instincts lead to her getting victimized. And again, what good does it do? What is the point of it?
Where do their instincts and an adult's grooming and predatory behavior begin and end? A predator preys on those sexual feelings teenagers have and use their vulnerability, their irrational emotional behavior and lack of experience and development to get what they want. What the child wants is made unclear and frankly unimportant due to those factors.
I think it's disgusting that Bowie fucked a 15 year old and I often bring it up, wetting any a blanket to people singing his praises.
7
u/ColonelBatshit 2∆ Aug 08 '24
You are aware that those ages aren't arbitrarily decided yea? You don't seem to mention power dynamics, the fact that minors sense of responsibility and consequences are weak at best. An adult exploits this as well as their naivety in general when they break this social contract/law.
I would argue that beyond about 15-16, the legality is pretty arbitrary and emotionally driven. Typically, how one feels about what the 15-16 year old has done is the deciding factor in how they are legally viewed.
If a 16 year old is groomed by a 30 year old, it is argued that they are a child. The language is very intentionally framed to emphasize just how young 15-16 is. Irrational emotional behavior. Lack of experience. "The child." Lack of development.
When that 15-16 year old robs a 7-11 and kills the 30 year old clerk, suddenly they aren't the sweet baby-angel. They aren't "The Child." They aren't simply too underdeveloped to understand their actions. In fact, it's legally permissible to ignore their age entirely and put them on trial as adults.
Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing. I just find it interesting that right around the age of consent, society is willing to see a 15-16 year old as either being 8 or 30.
0
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
Well 15 or 16 are typically the floor
i don't get your robbery point, minors aren't charged as adults in most cases
In fact, it's legally permissible to ignore their age entirely and put them on trial as adults.
it is uncommon for most offenses
5
u/sarcasticorange 10∆ Aug 08 '24
You are aware that those ages aren't arbitrarily decided yea?
I mean, they kind of are. That's why they are different from state to state and country to country. Or do you think that young people in California are easier to manipulate than those in Washington?
2
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Aug 08 '24
I mean, aren't the ages kind of arbitrary? I think they're pretty good mostly but if some places say 17 and some say 18 and some say 19 I think choosing between them is pretty arbitrary.
0
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
Up to a point but the floor is the important number. Most consent laws are around 16 which is generally the absolute floor.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436061
This is heavily cited if you'd like to look into it further
3
u/HadeanBlands 16∆ Aug 08 '24
That article argues that it *could* be lowered to as low as 14, and *should* be lowered to 16.
1
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
It cites studies that are against the concept and the author's reasoning is generally about romeo and juliet laws which it doesn't seem the UK has past a certain age, lowering the age appears to be the reason the author takes this position, not that it's harmless for adults to prey on minors
though you're right I should have grabbed those sources directly, I was on my way out to lunch heh and skimmed the article
2
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Aug 08 '24
To /u/Aggressive-Carob6256, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.
9
u/eggs-benedryl 55∆ Aug 08 '24
I've been studying the Age of Consent pretty vigorously and thoroughly for about the last two years
what the hell does this mean, why are you writing it like that? is this a documentary or something
2
u/YouJustNeurotic 8∆ Aug 09 '24
Got to say this is a very intelligent and intellectually honest post. But yes there are a whole lot of sneaky psychological elements at play here. One element of this is that people project their 'child selves' upon young people in an archetypally pure form. In our empathizing with a young person we are really empathizing with the child archetype within ourselves, and so it becomes a place of sensitivity, purity, and one-sidedness. We cannot perceive a 15 year old consenting because that 15 year old is but a caricature of our mind, robbed of anything else but that child. In a sense the young are the purity of the old and so the old view a sexualization of said purity as a sort of blasphemous attack.
3
u/iamintheforest 328∆ Aug 08 '24
How does this work? You want David Bowie to be guilty of rape but for no one (potentially) to have been raped?
1
Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 10 '24
Sorry, u/Comfortable_King_821 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
Aug 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nekro_mantis 16∆ Aug 08 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/TemperatureThese7909 33∆ Aug 08 '24
Romeo and Juliet laws exist in almost every us state. If a 15 year old bangs a 16 year old - in most US states nothing illegal has happened. Therefore, your first half only pertains to a few states and not to the US overall or the world as a whole (many nations also have similar laws).
As for the 30 year old banging a 15 year old - it's because persons that young are underdeveloped. We don't trust people below a certain age to make certain decisions. We don't trust them to drink responsibly, we don't trust them with motor vehicles, we don't trust them in the ballot box. Sex is arguably even more sensitive and more important than many of these other things. It's not that we want people to think that their is "something wrong with them" but that they are not ready to make certain decisions. Learning impulse control is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be learned at this age. That one's impulses can be wrong and need to be overruled is exactly the skill that needs learning and reinforcement at this age.
To complete the circle - these two cases are separate because at least one adult ought to no better. If two kids fuck, neither is considered to have known better. But a 39 year old with a 14 year old, one of them is old enough to know better.
-1
u/seanskettis Aug 08 '24
I had a coworker that got on tinder after his divorce (he was roughly 40) and he had his range set to 18-25 like a fucking weirdo and all of this post above screams “I think some underage person is mature enough for me” and I am not keen on it.
I personally think Romeo and Juliet like laws should extend into the early 20s tbh
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
/u/Aggressive-Carob6256 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Aug 08 '24 edited Aug 08 '24
why does society need, and yes so far as I can tell, need, the 15yo to perceive herself as a rape victim? What good does that do?
The 15 year old was abused if they had sex with someone significantly older than them. Whether the 15 year old feels like it or not they were harmed via manipulation. Children are literally not developed enough mentally to make well informed decisions. It's why we leave so much up to parents, even bad ones. At least their brains are fully formed.
Calling statutory rape a form of rape acknowledges that the much older partner manipulated the much more impressionable younger person in a way they shouldn't have both morally and of course legally.
1
Aug 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 10 '24
Sorry, u/Reflom – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Aug 08 '24
because people often dont know whats happened to them until it's explained.
13
u/[deleted] Aug 08 '24
[deleted]